Forums of the Megaverse®

So in the "Worst OCC/RCC in Rifts" thread -
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179634

- we've had a lengthy discussion on some of the Rifts military OCC's and what they can/can't do.

I thought it might be a fun exercise to take these type of OCC's and give them a re-fresh.

While doesn't have to be a starting point for this discussion, I had at one time written out what a CS military recruit would look like after finishing Basic Training, Infantry training, Commando, etc. However I think that type of a template would work for multiple nations. We could just as easily go straight to the individual classes to talk about if desired.

I think a foundation that would need to be agreed upon though would be Basic. What skills does one really have after completing Basic Training? For anyone interested and not aware, there is the "Boot Camp" adventure found in the Rifts Mercenary Adventures book.

My quick thoughts on a Generic Rifts Earth Military Basic Training Skill Set -
1. Basic Radio
2. First Aid
3. Land Navigation
4. Running
5. Forced March
6. WP Energy Rifle
7. Basic Hand to Hand

I'm not sure they need Military Etiquette at this point - as per the skill description every soldier has a locked fundamental basic knowledge of this.

I'm on the fence about any sort of Pilot skill - if included it would be simple like either Automobile or Hovercraft. They marched our behinds off when I went through Basic back in '90.

Any other skills might be the result of the particular nation - for example the Republic of Japan I believe their Infantry has multiple languages, literacy, math, etc - but these aren't likely the result of Basic Training, this is their formal education prior to enlistment (at least in my mind).

Thoughts?

Dustin Fireblade wrote:So in the "Worst OCC/RCC in Rifts" thread -
https://palladium-megaverse.com/forums/ ... 8&t=179634

- we've had a lengthy discussion on some of the Rifts military OCC's and what they can/can't do.

I thought it might be a fun exercise to take these type of OCC's and give them a re-fresh.

While doesn't have to be a starting point for this discussion, I had at one time written out what a CS military recruit would look like after finishing Basic Training, Infantry training, Commando, etc. However I think that type of a template would work for multiple nations. We could just as easily go straight to the individual classes to talk about if desired.

Yeah, that subject has been a bit wobbly, BUT the CS has very often been used as the template, with various nations listing their soldiers as "equivalent to the CS Grunt" or whatever.
So it's pretty reasonable for the CS to be a base, although they do seem to have an edge in training in a few ways (like every Grunt being able to pilot robots/power armor).

I think a foundation that would need to be agreed upon though would be Basic. What skills does one really have after completing Basic Training? For anyone interested and not aware, there is the "Boot Camp" adventure found in the Rifts Mercenary Adventures book.

My quick thoughts on a Generic Rifts Earth Military Basic Training Skill Set -
1. Basic Radio
2. First Aid
3. Land Navigation
4. Running
5. Forced March
6. WP Energy Rifle
7. Basic Hand to Hand

I'm not sure they need Military Etiquette at this point - as per the skill description every soldier has a locked fundamental basic knowledge of this.

I think Military Etiquette is a skill simply because non-military people won't necessarily have it, but might want/need it: spies, militia, etc.
It'd probably be simpler to keep Military Etiquette as part of Basic Training, rather than just having it as an unlisted skill that the military gets which other people would have to list.

I'm on the fence about any sort of Pilot skill - if included it would be simple like either Automobile or Hovercraft. They marched our behinds off when I went through Basic back in '90.

Any other skills might be the result of the particular nation - for example the Republic of Japan I believe their Infantry has multiple languages, literacy, math, etc - but these aren't likely the result of Basic Training, this is their formal education prior to enlistment (at least in my mind).

Thoughts?

One of the things about the Rifts setting is the diversity of technology and training: one nation/kingdom might have enough power armor for standard Grunts to get training for it, another nation might have no power armor at all, but instead have Automatons or TW Wingboards or something as standard. Another region's military might rely on cavalry/dragoons, using animals or monsters as mounts for their troops.
I think the best thing might be to have a number of Pilot skills, the nature of which might be determined by the region/military in question, rather than any one specific kind of vehicle skill(s).
If that makes sense.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think Military Etiquette is a skill simply because non-military people won't necessarily have it, but might want/need it: spies, militia, etc.
It'd probably be simpler to keep Military Etiquette as part of Basic Training, rather than just having it as an unlisted skill that the military gets which other people would have to list.

I can live with that.

I think the best thing might be to have a number of Pilot skills, the nature of which might be determined by the region/military in question, rather than any one specific kind of vehicle skill(s).
If that makes sense.

It does, I was just torn where to put that training at. If I was the CS for example, I might train them just to the level as posted above, then let them prove themselves and see if they volunteer for more training, and give them the full "Grunt" training.

Then later the Grunt volunteers again for more "Advanced Training"

Actually...with the "Advanced Training" stuff from Heroes of Humanity, I wonder if we just make a "Special Forces AT" that a Grunt could add later rather than getting Related skills??

When I did my blog post review of the Men-At-Arms OCCs, I found two specific streams or approaches could cut down on both the number and design of most of the OCCs. In most cases, it breaks down to a Mercenaries version (for lack of a better terms; includes smaller city-states like NG, Kingsdale) or a Military version (e.g. CS/NGR/Geo-Front).

Case in point: with very few deviations, the CS Technical Officer (I renamed into the Military Technical Officer) and Merc Soldier, share a series of MOS selections that are effectively the same thing. By rationalizing the MOS options from other similar OCCs, then specifying a Baseline major military version and then a mercenary version, you drop over a dozen OCCs, replaced by two primary OCCs that can then be used across any setting. Throw in a list of MOS specialties and voila.

This approach continues across 'Borgs, Juicers, Military Specialists/Commandos, PA/Robot Pilots (the worst offender), etc.

desrocfc wrote:When I did my blog post review of the Men-At-Arms OCCs, I found two specific streams or approaches could cut down on both the number and design of most of the OCCs. In most cases, it breaks down to a Mercenaries version (for lack of a better terms; includes smaller city-states like NG, Kingsdale) or a Military version (e.g. CS/NGR/Geo-Front).

Case in point: with very few deviations, the CS Technical Officer (I renamed into the Military Technical Officer) and Merc Soldier, share a series of MOS selections that are effectively the same thing. By rationalizing the MOS options from other similar OCCs, then specifying a Baseline major military version and then a mercenary version, you drop over a dozen OCCs, replaced by two primary OCCs that can then be used across any setting. Throw in a list of MOS specialties and voila.

This approach continues across 'Borgs, Juicers, Military Specialists/Commandos, PA/Robot Pilots (the worst offender), etc.

agree.
My thought was that you could even go a little more basic in a way, and make it so all man at arms start with a core set of skills:
package non military skills:
language native
literacy native language (optional depending on background) CS tends towards no
basic math
1-2 skills from domestic

basically EVERYONE gets that package.

man at arms gets
1. Basic Radio
2. First Aid
3. Land Navigation
4. Running
5. Forced March
6. WP Energy Rifle Replace this with WP 1-3
7. Basic Hand to Hand (replace with hand to hand basic, or may be automatically upgraded)

and then give say 2 MOS packages plus an option of a RACIAL package

Hasn’t this been done with the Merc Soldier/Hired Gun O.C.C. on RUE page 82?

Mlp7029 wrote:Hasn’t this been done with the Merc Soldier/Hired Gun O.C.C. on RUE page 82?

To some degree, yes. But there are almost another dozen OCCs that replicate the process with duplicate results.

Extend this out across all OCCs and you start wondering why we have Special Forces, CS Special Forces, CS Commando, NGR Intel Ops, Spetsnaz and a series of others that are effectively Military Specialists of a different flavour.

How many OCCs are effectively just the Robot/PA Pilot of a different flavour?

Hint: Lots....... and then more after what you think "lots" is.

I would take things one step further by having every character get some skills depending on their family background and upbringing, including the possibility of skills that might not be available to an OCC. It’s a neat idea used in a couple of OCCs in Fantasy, and it seems appropriate to apply to just about any OCC.

Hotrod wrote:I would take things one step further by having every character get some skills depending on their family background and upbringing, including the possibility of skills that might not be available to an OCC. It’s a neat idea used in a couple of OCCs in Fantasy, and it seems appropriate to apply to just about any OCC.

Isn't that what Secondary Skills do?

I would replace running with general athletics, while the military does run allot they also do body weight exercises like push ups.

I would say rather than a unlisted skill list military etiquite as a skill.

Initial entry training is broken into two categories.

Basic every one should have. What is basic would change depending on branch.
Navy would probably include swimming, at the expense of forced march unless they are marines. Replace land nav with basic mechanics. (navy personal would use basic mechanic skill to stop leaks)


Advanced related to your job- typically vehicles related to your mos would fall under advanced.

Basically a military MOS should be basic plus MOS/job code/rate. But that is not the way they where written.


The CS grunt is a 11m - mechanized infantry that has robot piloting robot combat basic instead of weapon systems.

I dislike CS grunts being based off world war 2 tactics they should have the skill camouflage.

Fenris2020 wrote:

Hotrod wrote:I would take things one step further by having every character get some skills depending on their family background and upbringing, including the possibility of skills that might not be available to an OCC. It’s a neat idea used in a couple of OCCs in Fantasy, and it seems appropriate to apply to just about any OCC.

Isn't that what Secondary Skills do?

Depends on the system. In some games, there’s a list of secondary skills anyone can pick from. In others, secondary skills have the same limitations as OCC Related skills for each OCC.

Blue_Lion wrote:I would replace running with general athletics, while the military does run allot they also do body weight exercises like push ups.

I dislike CS grunts being based off world war 2 tactics they should have the skill camouflage.

Well I don't entirely disagree replacing Running with General Athletics, I'm just not sure it fits for a Basic Training skill set, mainly because of the dodge/parry bonus it gives. Maybe the "Physical Labor" skill instead to represent the conditioning? (It gives +2 PS/+1 PE and +2d8 to SDC). Then save the GA skill for the completion of the AIT equivalent?

On Camouflage I agree anyone who has completed Infantry training/school should have it.

Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

My blog post is up, where I examined the (copious) Men-at-Arms OCCs across the Rifts World Books and Sourcebooks, less Rifts Merc Adventures and Heroes of Humanity.

BLUF (Bottom-Line-Up-Front): Way too much bloat, and time for a reset. What I would love to see is some sort of Rifts Renaissance, with a full-fledged third edition that cleans up the rules, along with a rationalization/redesign of the OCCs that allows better dovetailing of rules to characters. This exercise shows how, with a little effort, they could cut down from 200+ Men-at-Arms and bring it to something in the high teens, low twenties.

https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

True. I was probably biased by the CS Grunt and Merc Soldier both having it as a OCC skill. I think the NGR Infantry Soldier actually has Energy Rifle and "Automatic Rifle" (Which under RUE I believe would now just be "Rifle").

So to replace WP E-Pistol, go with either WP Automatic Rifle/Rifle or WP Heavy Energy Weapons?

Could go with one additional WP of choice.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

Wouldn't they also need WP: Spear for bayonet training (when the knife is attached to the rifle)? WP: Spear is specifically identified for this role (pg61 of HUE:2E and pg327 of RUE, and probably a few other modern/futuristic settings). Or has bayonet training fallen by the wayside?

ShadowLogan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

Wouldn't they also need WP: Spear for bayonet training (when the knife is attached to the rifle)? WP: Spear is specifically identified for this role (pg61 of HUE:2E and pg327 of RUE, and probably a few other modern/futuristic settings). Or has bayonet training fallen by the wayside?

Right away I would not develop the WP Spear idea to equate to bayonet fighting.

Bear in mind you should not be trying to design an OCC for today's environment. My impression would be that the Technical Officer should simply include the "Grunt" as something akin to the "Pigman" MOS from Merc Soldier; the other MOS could capture select skills the "Grunt" doesn't necessarily need, like that finicky skill of Literacy.

As for the skills noted above, as a currently serving Infantry Officer, the only ones I would consider pertinent for Baseline OCC Skills are:

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March Reserve this for a Grunt/Weapons MOS
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand Replace with HtH: Basic
16. Native Language

The Native Language thing is a bugbear with me and the Rifts OCCs as they are; just another reason to conduct a wholesale rationalization and revamp of the OCCs. No stretch that characters should start with Language: Native Tongue without it costing an OCC Skill.....

desrocfc wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

Wouldn't they also need WP: Spear for bayonet training (when the knife is attached to the rifle)? WP: Spear is specifically identified for this role (pg61 of HUE:2E and pg327 of RUE, and probably a few other modern/futuristic settings). Or has bayonet training fallen by the wayside?

Right away I would not develop the WP Spear idea to equate to bayonet fighting.

Bear in mind you should not be trying to design an OCC for today's environment. My impression would be that the Technical Officer should simply include the "Grunt" as something akin to the "Pigman" MOS from Merc Soldier; the other MOS could capture select skills the "Grunt" doesn't necessarily need, like that finicky skill of Literacy.

As for the skills noted above, as a currently serving Infantry Officer, the only ones I would consider pertinent for Baseline OCC Skills are:

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March Reserve this for a Grunt/Weapons MOS
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand Replace with HtH: Basic
16. Native Language

The Native Language thing is a bugbear with me and the Rifts OCCs as they are; just another reason to conduct a wholesale rationalization and revamp of the OCCs. No stretch that characters should start with Language: Native Tongue without it costing an OCC Skill.....

I would also seriously consider changing the WP pistol and wp knife to
wp energy pistol = wp of choice typically wp energy pistol or Heavy MD weapons
wp knife wp of choice typically knife or sword

the actual wp numbers don't change, but there is more flexibility

desrocfc wrote:Bear in mind you should not be trying to design an OCC for today's environment.

I believe this cannot be overstated. A generic framework for martially oriented adventurers should be able to model disparate concepts. Similarly, the term MOS isn't generally applicable, as it applies most commonly to training-based career certifications in some (but not all)of the branches of one nation's military, during a certain period of time, on one planet. The phrase Skill Program, however, can cover things from training, to formal education, to cultural osmosis, to psychic implants and skillsoft brain surgery.

As a rough stab, I'd say an initial generic soldier template could look something like:

Hand to Hand:Basic
Military Etiquette (setting specific)
1 W.P. (setting specific)
2 Physical (setting specific and low requirement)
2 low-requirement skill slots (which if not filled by mandatory Skill Program requirements can be of choice, according to setting constraints)
Access to Skill Programs with the [Armed Forces] tag

The use of tags to limit access to certain skills, I'd argue, helps with narrative reinforcement. Linking these to skill requirements helps keep certain skills in use which might get tossed in a min/max situation.

The above template would be added to a setting-appropriate background skill template. For modern day settings one option for this could be:

Native language and Literacy
Mathematics:Basic
Computer Operation
Pilot of choice (low-requirement, or replace with additional choice as seen below)
General Education (New Technical skill): this is a bit of a catch-all for non-restricted, non-specialized information. Consider it roughly equivalent to a high-school diploma. Can be taken twice to represent someone with an interest in trivia, or a general studies secondary degree.
2 low requirement skills of choice from Domestic/Technical/Communications/Pilot, plus First Aid

If this generic soldier is to model a member of the 21st century U.S.A. Army infantry, their initial template might look like this:
Hand to Hand:Basic
Military Etiquette (21st Century U.S. Army)
W.P. (Rifle)
Running
General Athletics
Mandatory Skills met either via slots from Background, Generic Template, or Related Skills:
First Aid
Radio: Basic
Land Navigation
Camouflage
Access to Skill Programs with the [Armed Forces] tag

The relative power level of a game could be assessed as a function of number of additional Skill Programs, access to Supernatural Skill Programs, and the number and quality of Gear Packages. The infantry character above, for instance might have an Infantry Combat Training Skill Program, which adds a couple of physical skills, a couple of WPs, and upgrades Hand to Hand from Basic to Expert. This would seem to cover all the bases Dustin brought up.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I'd drop WP Knife entirely. This is someone straight out of Basic. I can't imagine they've spent enough time working on knife skills to warrant the WP. Likewise with WP Energy Pistol. The character, at this point in their development, is a very basic grunt.

Perhaps replace both of them with a single skill: Choice of one WP or Military skill (to reflect the character's aptitude in a certain area).

desrocfc wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

Wouldn't they also need WP: Spear for bayonet training (when the knife is attached to the rifle)? WP: Spear is specifically identified for this role (pg61 of HUE:2E and pg327 of RUE, and probably a few other modern/futuristic settings). Or has bayonet training fallen by the wayside?

Right away I would not develop the WP Spear idea to equate to bayonet fighting.

Bear in mind you should not be trying to design an OCC for today's environment. My impression would be that the Technical Officer should simply include the "Grunt" as something akin to the "Pigman" MOS from Merc Soldier; the other MOS could capture select skills the "Grunt" doesn't necessarily need, like that finicky skill of Literacy.

As for the skills noted above, as a currently serving Infantry Officer, the only ones I would consider pertinent for Baseline OCC Skills are:

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March Reserve this for a Grunt/Weapons MOS
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand Replace with HtH: Basic
16. Native Language

The Native Language thing is a bugbear with me and the Rifts OCCs as they are; just another reason to conduct a wholesale rationalization and revamp of the OCCs. No stretch that characters should start with Language: Native Tongue without it costing an OCC Skill.....

I'd argue that any soldier involved with infantry work would get Forced March. Some of us remember a very long march at the end of Basic, and miles and miles of marching carrying about our own body-weights while in our units.
As for the Native Language, well, I'd assume your parents taught you how to talk. Most peoples' parents do.

Mack wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I'd drop WP Knife entirely. This is someone straight out of Basic. I can't imagine they've spent enough time working on knife skills to warrant the WP. Likewise with WP Energy Pistol. The character, at this point in their development, is a very basic grunt.

Perhaps replace both of them with a single skill: Choice of one WP or Military skill (to reflect the character's aptitude in a certain area).

Well this is someone who has completed their AIT, gone to whatever Infantry school their nation has, etc.

That said, I don't disagree with removing WP Knife or E-Pistol.

I'm thinking WP Rifle and WP Heavy Energy to replace them.

desrocfc wrote:
As for the skills noted above, as a currently serving Infantry Officer, the only ones I would consider pertinent for Baseline OCC Skills are:

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March Reserve this for a Grunt/Weapons MOS
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand Replace with HtH: Basic
16. Native Language

The Native Language thing is a bugbear with me and the Rifts OCCs as they are; just another reason to conduct a wholesale rationalization and revamp of the OCCs. No stretch that characters should start with Language: Native Tongue without it costing an OCC Skill.....

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:
<snip>

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Realistically, soldiers would get H2H Basic; anything above that is specialist training. Expert/Martial/Assassin/Commando should face an ever decreasing percentage of expectation and selection. Regardless that we're talking in the context of 'hero' player characters, this is a *lot* more than most anyone would get.

When I say Grunt, I mean there should be a Grunt MOS to Military Technical Officer; most would be Grunts/Weapons Experts, while the others would encompass the MOS for Communications, Electronics/Mechanic, etc. I would envision the Grunt would then get Forced March and several other combat-related skills (like more W.P.), the other MOS concentrating on niche skills.

I think people take a more inflated view of climbing in relation to basic and Infantry training. Doing a bit of repelling off a tower and clambering through the obstacle course does not justify a Climbing skill selection. We had to do a treading water test, which was simple for me, but I did a lot of swimming. There are guys there that could barely make one lap across the deep end, but they passed by not drowning; this does not benefit them with the Swimming skill. <shrug>

desrocfc wrote:Right away I would not develop the WP Spear idea to equate to bayonet fighting.

WP: Spear's equating to bayonet fighting IS from the skill description. Weather it makes sense or not I can not say, but WP: Knife also includes "claw" weapons. So IMHO, short of going through and revising the skill descriptions I would say Spear = Bayonet (attached to rifle) fighting.

desrocfc wrote:Bear in mind you should not be trying to design an OCC for today's environment. My impression would be that the Technical Officer should simply include the "Grunt" as something akin to the "Pigman" MOS from Merc Soldier; the other MOS could capture select skills the "Grunt" doesn't necessarily need, like that finicky skill of Literacy.

I think the question that is worth asking is if Bayonet Fighting is still practiced/used in the time of Rifts. Now this might come down to faction modification, but we do know Vibro-Bayonets exist (RUE pg259) which suggests the combat method is still in use.

I think the problem here with OCCs, is that really some of them should be a skill package (call it what you want MOS, AT, skill program) for other more basic OCCs. For example the CS military should really only have 2-3 OCCs (for humans): Grunt (for Army), Sailor (for their Navy), and maybe Airman (if the Air Force is separate). Then they get a skill package for their main military area of training (which would be a lot of OCCs currently). The ISS/NetSet are separate organizations. I'm not sure about augments ('Borgs, Juicers, Crazies) or empowered (defined psychic classes they use). You could even have a small bit about regional modifications. The alternative is to just come up with a "common skill" package for all OCCs for a given faction.

Basic soldier skills aren’t all that complicated or extensive. To fight, move, and communicate are about all you need, skill-wise, and none of these need be at an expert level of proficiency. Above and beyond what any functioning adult should be able to do, basic training should develop a single weapon proficiency (likely energy rifle), some skills for managing physical hardship/work/long marches, and the use and maintenance of standard-issue equipment.

If I were to redesign the CS military OCC’s, I would focus on the basic skills needed to use all features of their standard EBA like radio:basic, give them basic hand-to hand, throw in WP Energy Rifle, and a couple of basic physical skills like general athletics and forced march. That’s about it.

desrocfc wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:
<snip>

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Realistically, soldiers would get H2H Basic; anything above that is specialist training. Expert/Martial/Assassin/Commando should face an ever decreasing percentage of expectation and selection. Regardless that we're talking in the context of 'hero' player characters, this is a *lot* more than most anyone would get.

When I say Grunt, I mean there should be a Grunt MOS to Military Technical Officer; most would be Grunts/Weapons Experts, while the others would encompass the MOS for Communications, Electronics/Mechanic, etc. I would envision the Grunt would then get Forced March and several other combat-related skills (like more W.P.), the other MOS concentrating on niche skills.

I think people take a more inflated view of climbing in relation to basic and Infantry training. Doing a bit of repelling off a tower and clambering through the obstacle course does not justify a Climbing skill selection. We had to do a treading water test, which was simple for me, but I did a lot of swimming. There are guys there that could barely make one lap across the deep end, but they passed by not drowning; this does not benefit them with the Swimming skill. <shrug>

Ok, I can live with Basic HtH.

On the Climbing skill, my thoughts are this is going to be far more expansive training - Most canon military forces have a number of air mobile options, and being trained to do air assaults (which is what currently, 10 days?) is far more believable than giving them Pilot Tanks/APC's or Robot Combat skills

And I'm sorry I'm a little dosed with meds at the moment and don't follow you on the MOS comments.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Ok, some thoughts on what a completed Generic Infantry OCC would look like -

1. Basic Radio +10%
2. First Aid +10%
3. Land Navigation +10%
4. Military Etiquette +10%
5. Pilot Automobile/Hovercraft +10% (Select 1)
6. Camouflage +10%
7. Climbing +10%
8. Running
9. Physical Labor (Or call it Physical Training)
10. Body Building or General Athletics (Pick One)
11. Forced March
12. WP Energy Rifle
13. WP Energy Pistol
14. WP Knife
15. Expert Hand to Hand
16. Native Language

And I believe that is one more OCC skill than what the CS Grunt has, and 2 more than the Merc Solider.
This has more physical skills, one less piloting skill. Same number of WP's, and same HtH skill vs. the CS Grunt.

Anyway, thoughts?

(Side Note - my response to a new post/questions are possibly limited in near future, depending on current world events)

I think you could skip WP Energy Pistol. Infantry work is rifle work as a rule.

Not skip replace with wp heavy. Most infantry are trained in use of Grenade launchers, rocket launchers and crew served weapons. That way if heavey weapons guy goes down they can keep it in the fight to take out the enemy heavy units.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:
<snip>

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Realistically, soldiers would get H2H Basic; anything above that is specialist training. Expert/Martial/Assassin/Commando should face an ever decreasing percentage of expectation and selection. Regardless that we're talking in the context of 'hero' player characters, this is a *lot* more than most anyone would get.

When I say Grunt, I mean there should be a Grunt MOS to Military Technical Officer; most would be Grunts/Weapons Experts, while the others would encompass the MOS for Communications, Electronics/Mechanic, etc. I would envision the Grunt would then get Forced March and several other combat-related skills (like more W.P.), the other MOS concentrating on niche skills.

I think people take a more inflated view of climbing in relation to basic and Infantry training. Doing a bit of repelling off a tower and clambering through the obstacle course does not justify a Climbing skill selection. We had to do a treading water test, which was simple for me, but I did a lot of swimming. There are guys there that could barely make one lap across the deep end, but they passed by not drowning; this does not benefit them with the Swimming skill. <shrug>

Ok, I can live with Basic HtH.

On the Climbing skill, my thoughts are this is going to be far more expansive training - Most canon military forces have a number of air mobile options, and being trained to do air assaults (which is what currently, 10 days?) is far more believable than giving them Pilot Tanks/APC's or Robot Combat skills

And I'm sorry I'm a little dosed with meds at the moment and don't follow you on the MOS comments.

apcs are more than just transport for infantry. They are mobile cover and increased fire power platforms. While their are other ways to get them in combat apc is about keeping them alive. Apcs should be cheaper than robots and air assets do not require airfields.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:
<snip>

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Realistically, soldiers would get H2H Basic; anything above that is specialist training. Expert/Martial/Assassin/Commando should face an ever decreasing percentage of expectation and selection. Regardless that we're talking in the context of 'hero' player characters, this is a *lot* more than most anyone would get.

When I say Grunt, I mean there should be a Grunt MOS to Military Technical Officer; most would be Grunts/Weapons Experts, while the others would encompass the MOS for Communications, Electronics/Mechanic, etc. I would envision the Grunt would then get Forced March and several other combat-related skills (like more W.P.), the other MOS concentrating on niche skills.

I think people take a more inflated view of climbing in relation to basic and Infantry training. Doing a bit of repelling off a tower and clambering through the obstacle course does not justify a Climbing skill selection. We had to do a treading water test, which was simple for me, but I did a lot of swimming. There are guys there that could barely make one lap across the deep end, but they passed by not drowning; this does not benefit them with the Swimming skill. <shrug>

Ok, I can live with Basic HtH.

On the Climbing skill, my thoughts are this is going to be far more expansive training - Most canon military forces have a number of air mobile options, and being trained to do air assaults (which is what currently, 10 days?) is far more believable than giving them Pilot Tanks/APC's or Robot Combat skills

And I'm sorry I'm a little dosed with meds at the moment and don't follow you on the MOS comments.

MOS is shorthand for Military Occupation Speciality
what it works out to is each "career" in the military is given a different "code number currently" that can be used to define their "core" skillset.
whether its infantry, combat engineer, tank crew. communications specialist etc.

what the general thread at the moment is that people have been trying to figure out what would make sense as a fundamental "core" skill set that all troops would end up with after the equivalent of army basic training would end up with.

I kind of suggested that it might make sense to have 2 or 3 "core" blocks for instance a pre military block that at least in part set by where they live
for instance in the US
you should end up with:
language english
literacy english
math basic
(possibly math advanced)
some science
some history
computer operation
and some number of general skills like domestic or similar.

I believe that due to the volunteer nature of the us military presently they may not even accept you if you don't hit certain minimums, on the test they put you through before they formally accept you. the test also (along with your preferences) and current needs helps determine which MOS they assign you to. for instance you can request assignment to any MOS but if they currently need infantry more than tank crew, you are a lot more likely to be assigned to the infantry mos's.

guardiandashi wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

desrocfc wrote:
<snip>

The NGR Infantry Soldier has HtH Basic to start, but I think that might be only one like that?

Not sure what you mean by reserving Forced March for a Grunt? That's what this is - someone who has completed their Basic and AIT Infantry School. Likewise with Climbing?

Realistically, soldiers would get H2H Basic; anything above that is specialist training. Expert/Martial/Assassin/Commando should face an ever decreasing percentage of expectation and selection. Regardless that we're talking in the context of 'hero' player characters, this is a *lot* more than most anyone would get.

When I say Grunt, I mean there should be a Grunt MOS to Military Technical Officer; most would be Grunts/Weapons Experts, while the others would encompass the MOS for Communications, Electronics/Mechanic, etc. I would envision the Grunt would then get Forced March and several other combat-related skills (like more W.P.), the other MOS concentrating on niche skills.

I think people take a more inflated view of climbing in relation to basic and Infantry training. Doing a bit of repelling off a tower and clambering through the obstacle course does not justify a Climbing skill selection. We had to do a treading water test, which was simple for me, but I did a lot of swimming. There are guys there that could barely make one lap across the deep end, but they passed by not drowning; this does not benefit them with the Swimming skill. <shrug>

Ok, I can live with Basic HtH.

On the Climbing skill, my thoughts are this is going to be far more expansive training - Most canon military forces have a number of air mobile options, and being trained to do air assaults (which is what currently, 10 days?) is far more believable than giving them Pilot Tanks/APC's or Robot Combat skills

And I'm sorry I'm a little dosed with meds at the moment and don't follow you on the MOS comments.

MOS is shorthand for Military Occupation Speciality
what it works out to is each "career" in the military is given a different "code number currently" that can be used to define their "core" skillset.
whether its infantry, combat engineer, tank crew. communications specialist etc.

what the general thread at the moment is that people have been trying to figure out what would make sense as a fundamental "core" skill set that all troops would end up with after the equivalent of army basic training would end up with.

I kind of suggested that it might make sense to have 2 or 3 "core" blocks for instance a pre military block that at least in part set by where they live
for instance in the US
you should end up with:
language english
literacy english
math basic
(possibly math advanced)
some science
some history
computer operation
and some number of general skills like domestic or similar.

I believe that due to the volunteer nature of the us military presently they may not even accept you if you don't hit certain minimums, on the test they put you through before they formally accept you. the test also (along with your preferences) and current needs helps determine which MOS they assign you to. for instance you can request assignment to any MOS but if they currently need infantry more than tank crew, you are a lot more likely to be assigned to the infantry mos's.

I should point out MOS is army and marine specific term.
Air Force has AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code)
Navy has ratings.

When you sign up for the army you need to hit certain minimal then you pick a MOS from a list you qualify for. (If you fail out then you go needs of the army) Changing MOS requires that they are retraining people for the MOS you want.

CS and rifts do not present it self as high education so those high school style skills are not going to be known by basic soldiers. Lazlo might have standard schools like that.

It's almost as if there are multiple reasons why it's not a good model around which to build a class system.

There seem to be two separate conversations going on here so please excuse me if I missed something or repeat something that has already been said.

First, I like the discussion of what a basic military OCC might look like and for NPCs I think it could be useful. A basic rifts city dweller, farmer, soldier, sheriff/police, etc. might be handy but I think you run into a problem when you try to apply to much of it to player OCCs. Remember the point of an OCC is supposed to be that it has a hook making a player want to play them. I was just having a discussion about skills players never want to take but there are plenty of OCCs that get few to no player interest and the basic military ones usually are on that list. Players like the cool factor of a pilot or spec ops and few seem drawn to the basic OCCs, in my experience.

I like a lot of the ideas I have heard for streamlining and standardizing OCCs but I would be a littel worried about them becoming too generic.

My personal preference for most PB games especially Rifts would be along the lines of Robotech 2e.
Regional (for lack of a better word) Skills - These would be 6 or so skills that are unique to the persons background and place of origin
OCC Skills
Specialization or MOS - 1 or possibly 2 skill program selections
Related Skills
Secondary skills

A system like would allow you to standardize a lot of skill programs while still having regionally unique characters.

Hotrod wrote:I would take things one step further by having every character get some skills depending on their family background and upbringing, including the possibility of skills that might not be available to an OCC. It’s a neat idea used in a couple of OCCs in Fantasy, and it seems appropriate to apply to just about any OCC.

I agree and you could probably add these into a regional skill program that would be unique to place or upbringing.

Just out of curiosity though, what kind of skills were you thinking of?

desrocfc wrote:My blog post is up, where I examined the (copious) Men-at-Arms OCCs across the Rifts World Books and Sourcebooks, less Rifts Merc Adventures and Heroes of Humanity.

BLUF (Bottom-Line-Up-Front): Way too much bloat, and time for a reset. What I would love to see is some sort of Rifts Renaissance, with a full-fledged third edition that cleans up the rules, along with a rationalization/redesign of the OCCs that allows better dovetailing of rules to characters. This exercise shows how, with a little effort, they could cut down from 200+ Men-at-Arms and bring it to something in the high teens, low twenties.

https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

A Palladium 2.0 with a reset for most of the major game lines has been a longtime fantasy of many of us on the forums but given how difficult it is for PB to just release new books I would not hold your breath. What I like about the idea is that you can easily create modifications to it for new world settings.

For instance, one of my favorite OCCs is the Tolkeen Artifact Hunter in the Megaverse Builder book. It is basically a modification of the Shifter so in a system like you propose a writer could simply create the TAH saying it is a shifter with a new specialization skill program and a slight variation in powers. This would reduce a lot of the bloat while still allowing for some unique variations to appear.

Curbludgeon wrote:It's almost as if there are multiple reasons why it's not a good model around which to build a class system.

Just out of curiosity what would you build the class system around?

So, in a follow-up to my first post looking at the Men-at-Arms OCC bloat issue, I decided to tackle the whole idea of the Men-at-Arms and start doing a deep-dive into the heart/characteristics of the classes. The following is presented in a manner that facilitates what I hope is a Rifts Renaissance(TM) of the core rules, while also developing the OCCs into a system that could dovetail into those changes.

The key principle in these posts: hopefully any rules changes maintain the key components of the system (e.g. SDC/MDC, Attributes, percentile skill system) and all we need to do is present the Core Rules with an updated Character Class system that does not invalidate a whole library of books (a-la WotC approach with AD&D editions).

What may look like a fire sale on OCCs is really just a tweak of the current system with more fidelity for rules updates/changes, replacing copious duplicate OCCs with what I labelled as the ROC dynamic (Role - Occupation - Class). The example I use is Role: Men-at-Arms, Occupation: PA & Robot Pilot, Class: Glitter Boy; or simply ROC: Glitter Boy because GM/players would intrinsically understand the Role and Occupation. I simply propose 4 Roles (MAA, Psionics, Practitioners of Magic, and something that equates to "RCC"); Men-at-Arms, as presented, with only 12 Occupations, more akin to when Rifts: RPG came out. I did the math, and quite frankly, if re-written with some flexibility and some sort of a "Regional Overview" providing native languages and other minor guidance on character generation, there is no justification for more than the 12 Men-at-Arms.

Note: I have not invested the time in trying to baseline what I've termed the (admittedly lacking in creativity) "Oriental Warriors." They are each discrete classes, which says something for how well the game design went into them. I don't like the term, but have yet to find something that does them justice.

The Bazaar 26: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

The Bazaar 27: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... -follow-up

desrocfc wrote:What may look like a fire sale on OCCs is really just a tweak of the current system with more fidelity for rules updates/changes, replacing copious duplicate OCCs with what I labelled as the ROC dynamic (Role - Occupation - Class). The example I use is Role: Men-at-Arms, Occupation: PA & Robot Pilot, Class: Glitter Boy; or simply ROC: Glitter Boy because GM/players would intrinsically understand the Role and Occupation. I simply propose 4 Roles (MAA, Psionics, Practitioners of Magic, and something that equates to "RCC"); Men-at-Arms, as presented, with only 12 Occupations, more akin to when Rifts: RPG came out. I did the math, and quite frankly, if re-written with some flexibility and some sort of a "Regional Overview" providing native languages and other minor guidance on character generation, there is no justification for more than the 12 Men-at-Arms.

BLUF: I love this.

If Palladium ever comes out with a Post-Ultimate Edition (Ultimate Edition 2.0? Even More Ultimate Edition? "Just Kidding" Edition?), I think this could form a terrific basis for character creation. It wouldn't invalidate the previous system, so you wouldn't have to replace previous books, but it would help streamline character creation, give the process a more natural feel, and cut down on bloat moving forward.

I would also like to see some aspects of a character's upbringing included in rounding out skills and abilities. You touch on this with regional differences. I'd require 2-3 skills for each region a character comes from. Characters from the NGR should start with literacy, math: basic, and maybe one other tech-related skill. Characters from England should get Faerie Lore, Demon/Monster lore, and maybe one other lore-related skill. C.S. citizens might be expected to learn hand-to-hand: Basic, Recycling, and maybe one other skill that reflects their heavily-militarized/fascist society (this could also explain why C.S. Grunts generally start off with Expert Hand-to-Hand; they get bumped up one martial art level). These are skills every adult in a given society is expected to have.

I'd also include "family background/Upbringing" skills. These are maybe two or three skills that the character actively developed in youth/childhood and continues to hone in adulthood. Similar to the Family Background skills for Knights/Palladins in Palladium Fantasy, they would be at a professional level with a modest bonus, but they would be restricted to one or two skill categories. These skills would include categories and selections normally not available to the character's ROC.

Generating a character's skills or abilities might work something like this, then:
1. Pick a Role (get a baseline set of skills/traits/abilities)
2. Pick an Occupation (Get occupation-specific skills/traits/abilities)
3. Pick a Class (Add class-specific skills/traits/abilities, choose O.C.C. Related skills, and choose Secondary Skills)
4. Pick a Region/Culture of Origin (Add a fixed set of skills, might be in lieu of a couple of Secondary Skills)
5. Pick or Roll a Family/Upbringing (Choose skills within a set category, might be in lieu of a couple of Secondary Skills)

Hotrod wrote:<snip>

BLUF: I love this.

Thanks!

Hotrod wrote:If Palladium ever comes out with a Post-Ultimate Edition (Ultimate Edition 2.0? Even More Ultimate Edition? "Just Kidding" Edition?), I think this could form a terrific basis for character creation. It wouldn't invalidate the previous system, so you wouldn't have to replace previous books, but it would help streamline character creation, give the process a more natural feel, and cut down on bloat moving forward.

With the exception of your point 6 on the list, you basically hit the nail on the head of what I was proposing, particularly in not invalidating previous books, but also including what I would entitle the Regional Primer (which gives most characters a basis to develop the flavour of the region); I haven't gotten that far yet. My next post was going to be an example proof to demonstrate what a complete ROC could look like.

If PB wants a discussion on the work, I'm all ears. Seriously though, at this point the system is there and just needs a dovetail into any new rules paradigm they have in mind. I'm about to hit the Roles for Psionics and Practioners of Magic.

Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

Warshield73 wrote:Just out of curiosity what would you build the class system around?

I took a rough stab up thread, but already would want to tweak it, and can blather a bit.

As much as I think a ground-up revision might be most useful, with the relative popularity of Savage Rifts over Palladium Rifts in most modern playspaces a clear indicator, most would argue that backwards compatibility is a hard requirement and who am I to disagree? I would argue, though, that incorporating a straightforward metric by which the relative competence of characters can be communicated is essential. In lieu of switching entirely to a point-buy mechanic, chunking aspects of a character into gated packages allows a modular approach to character building while allowing a sliding-scale method of role preservation.
To wit:

• A character is composed of a combination of a number of Skill Packages, Power Packages, and Gear Packages, represented in shorthand as a three digit hexadecimal number.
• Skill packages roughly represent capabilities/knowledge/training which would to a current understanding be possible for a human, Power Packages are those things which aren't, and Gear Packages are equipment which isn't a fundamental part of the character.
• Skill Packages consist of ~8 slots, which may be filled with a combination of skills, bonuses, and expanded choice in additional Skill Packages.* Power Packages have the same number of slots, with some sort of exchange ratio for abilities.** Gear packages would be keyed to a given setting's Tech Level(possibly expressed in Roman numerals), and secondarily to the less goofy published credit/gold prices.
• Characters begin with 2 Background Skill Packages. Characters almost entirely defined by their inherent abilities alongside a limited capacity for varied education(the, ahem, 'racial' character classes) have both Skill Packages pre-allocated. All other characters have at least one Background Skill Package filled with setting-specific general skills, selected from a number of available character Backgrounds. Many characters' second Background Skill Package selection will be for the basics of an occupation.***

*Limited-access Skill Packages are gated through tags, such as [Criminal], [Military], [Tech Level X], and [Paranormal]

**My baseline for this is the Rifts Mystic. As a start, I figure standard Major Psionics is worth 1 Package, Intuitive casting limited to character level is 2, and stuff like Open Oneself to the Supernatural/TW access/ability to draw from ley lines together is generously 1. The Rifts Mystic begins with 27 non-gated skills and some preternaturally-themed bonuses to saves and perception. This would convert to 4 Skill Packages, consisting of 1 setting-based Background Package, 1 Package in Mystically Inclined(which grants access to the [Paranormal] tag), and 2 of choice. In terms of gear Mystics don't start with much, unless they have some wacky mount. In a Rifts setting, presuming the character chose at least one MD-capable weapon proficiency, a starting Mystic could perhaps be expressed as a 442(V) character, suitable for a 10 Package game. In comparison a Glitter Boy begins with the same number of skills, many of which would be gated behind a [Tech Level VI] tag, along with some combat bonuses. The Power Armor by itself in somewhere in the 8-B range, making a Glitter Boy in Armor a ~409(VI). This would suggest the GB is roughly more potent than a starting Mystic while piloting the suit to the same degree a Mystic is compared to the GB Pilot while they are outside of the suit, which I'd say passes the sniff test.

I'm undecided on other supernatural abilities value in terms of Power Packages. There's enough variety across Major and Minor Superpowers, for example, that it wouldn't just be a straight ratio. Then there are all the types of crafting, benefits for specialist practitioners of magic, Master Psionics, Nightbane Talents... which is why fantasy kitchen sink heartbreakers tend to lose steam.

***Edge cases might use the second Background Package to represent a substantial change to a character, such as forced experimentation.

Blue_Lion wrote:Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

The idea was to present a system to accommodate a new core rules reset, so basically the bolded point in the above quote. All the "Old OCCs" would be defunct, replaced with the ROC (or whatever they call them) and dovetail with new rules.

I was imagining regional option packets that allow players to better reflect where they come from (e.g. CS versus NGR). This would detail things like regional native language(s), whether literacy is common, etc.

Lastly, the problem with NPCs detailed in the older books (e.g. Splynncryth, the Proseks). I imagine that there would have to be a narrative to accompany any new books, which would allow a possible update to the characters within the context of the new Rules and Class system. It depends on how wild they go in updating the core rules; they could escape completely unscathed for all intents and purposes.

desrocfc wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

The idea was to present a system to accommodate a new core rules reset, so basically the bolded point in the above quote. All the "Old OCCs" would be defunct, replaced with the ROC (or whatever they call them) and dovetail with new rules.

You claim to not invalidating previous books but that is exactly what you just said it would do. (character classes are the rules in the book.)

I was imagining regional option packets that allow players to better reflect where they come from (e.g. CS versus NGR). This would detail things like regional native language(s), whether literacy is common, etc.

Lastly, the problem with NPCs detailed in the older books (e.g. Splynncryth, the Proseks). I imagine that there would have to be a narrative to accompany any new books, which would allow a possible update to the characters within the context of the new Rules and Class system. It depends on how wild they go in updating the core rules; they could escape completely unscathed for all intents and purposes.

So basically you invalidate all the rules in the old books and they are only good for information. Same affect as a change edition has in other games. Congrats now every one is going to have to buy updated versions of those books.

Blue_Lion wrote:

desrocfc wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

The idea was to present a system to accommodate a new core rules reset, so basically the bolded point in the above quote. All the "Old OCCs" would be defunct, replaced with the ROC (or whatever they call them) and dovetail with new rules.

You claim to not invalidating previous books but that is exactly what you just said it would do. (character classes are the rules in the book.)

I was imagining regional option packets that allow players to better reflect where they come from (e.g. CS versus NGR). This would detail things like regional native language(s), whether literacy is common, etc.

Lastly, the problem with NPCs detailed in the older books (e.g. Splynncryth, the Proseks). I imagine that there would have to be a narrative to accompany any new books, which would allow a possible update to the characters within the context of the new Rules and Class system. It depends on how wild they go in updating the core rules; they could escape completely unscathed for all intents and purposes.

So basically you invalidate all the rules in the old books and they are only good for information. Same affect as a change edition has in other games. Congrats now every one is going to have to buy updated versions of those books.

Not necessarily. There would just be two ways of making characters moving forward. The old way would be to pick an OCC. The new way would be to pick a role, occupation, class, region of origin, and family background. The result would be skills and abilities that wouldn't necessarily be different. Old-style characters wouldn't be invalidated, nor would NPCs. I see nothing about this that wouldn't prevent backwards compatability.

Hotrod wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

desrocfc wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

The idea was to present a system to accommodate a new core rules reset, so basically the bolded point in the above quote. All the "Old OCCs" would be defunct, replaced with the ROC (or whatever they call them) and dovetail with new rules.

You claim to not invalidating previous books but that is exactly what you just said it would do. (character classes are the rules in the book.)

I was imagining regional option packets that allow players to better reflect where they come from (e.g. CS versus NGR). This would detail things like regional native language(s), whether literacy is common, etc.

Lastly, the problem with NPCs detailed in the older books (e.g. Splynncryth, the Proseks). I imagine that there would have to be a narrative to accompany any new books, which would allow a possible update to the characters within the context of the new Rules and Class system. It depends on how wild they go in updating the core rules; they could escape completely unscathed for all intents and purposes.

So basically you invalidate all the rules in the old books and they are only good for information. Same affect as a change edition has in other games. Congrats now every one is going to have to buy updated versions of those books.

Not necessarily. There would just be two ways of making characters moving forward. The old way would be to pick an OCC. The new way would be to pick a role, occupation, class, region of origin, and family background. The result would be skills and abilities that wouldn't necessarily be different. Old-style characters wouldn't be invalidated, nor would NPCs. I see nothing about this that wouldn't prevent backwards compatability.

agree, the main issue would be skill balance between the old and newer methods
for instance if the new method gave consistently more (or less) skills and skill percentages than the old method then it would discourage the use of the method that gave weaker characters especially if they are less "interesting" to play

Consider also the fact that there are already multiple systems in other compatible settings in the Megaverse, which don’t use the OCC system and do more of a skill package approach: Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and I think some others. Shoot,in Mutants in Orbit, there are no Rifts OCCs, and the book suggests using After the Bomb character creation rules. Granted, that is my least-favorite Rifts book, but not for that reason.

Skill packages have also become a thing for Rifts characters with the Heroes of Humanity book, both in initial creation and for existing characters. Building an alternative approach to character creation just takes things a step further.

Hotrod wrote:Consider also the fact that there are already multiple systems in other compatible settings in the Megaverse, which don’t use the OCC system and do more of a skill package approach: Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, and I think some others. Shoot,in Mutants in Orbit, there are no Rifts OCCs, and the book suggests using After the Bomb character creation rules. Granted, that is my least-favorite Rifts book, but not for that reason.

Skill packages have also become a thing for Rifts characters with the Heroes of Humanity book, both in initial creation and for existing characters. Building an alternative approach to character creation just takes things a step further.

Ninjas ans super spies supplement mystic china has rifts style OCCs. HU and Ninjas and superspies use skill packages on occ class style system. So they do have OCC they are just more flexible than rifts OCCS. Later suplement for ninjas and superspies mystic china has rifts style occs. Newer game lines from PB typically have more the hard skill package of rifts style OCCS. So the skill package occ was something they moved away from. Heroes of humanity and Lazlo are more of a way to enhance existing classes, power creep/flavor.

Wow, there is a lot in this thread. I am going to jump around and combine a few things here to save time and space so I apologize if I miss something or cut what something thinks is an important point.

First I want to say that any change to the character creation and OCC system, at this point, would necessitate a complete revision and probably require new versions of existing Rifts books. Just the introduction of RUE caused a massive issue with old OCCs requiring GMs to make revisions to bring them into line. OCCs in books like Rifts England and Underseas come to mind, but really any book before RUE is a problem. They even did an update of all the Triax OCCs from WB 5 and made it official material in the Rifter.

Add to this the power creep we see in books like Heroes of Humanity and Secrets of the Atlanteans and piecemeal approach would make this far worse. IMO.

desrocfc wrote:So, in a follow-up to my first post looking at the Men-at-Arms OCC bloat issue, I decided to tackle the whole idea of the Men-at-Arms and start doing a deep-dive into the heart/characteristics of the classes. The following is presented in a manner that facilitates what I hope is a Rifts Renaissance(TM) of the core rules, while also developing the OCCs into a system that could dovetail into those changes.

The key principle in these posts: hopefully any rules changes maintain the key components of the system (e.g. SDC/MDC, Attributes, percentile skill system) and all we need to do is present the Core Rules with an updated Character Class system that does not invalidate a whole library of books (a-la WotC approach with AD&D editions).

What may look like a fire sale on OCCs is really just a tweak of the current system with more fidelity for rules updates/changes, replacing copious duplicate OCCs with what I labelled as the ROC dynamic (Role - Occupation - Class). The example I use is Role: Men-at-Arms, Occupation: PA & Robot Pilot, Class: Glitter Boy; or simply ROC: Glitter Boy because GM/players would intrinsically understand the Role and Occupation. I simply propose 4 Roles (MAA, Psionics, Practitioners of Magic, and something that equates to "RCC"); Men-at-Arms, as presented, with only 12 Occupations, more akin to when Rifts: RPG came out. I did the math, and quite frankly, if re-written with some flexibility and some sort of a "Regional Overview" providing native languages and other minor guidance on character generation, there is no justification for more than the 12 Men-at-Arms.

Note: I have not invested the time in trying to baseline what I've termed the (admittedly lacking in creativity) "Oriental Warriors." They are each discrete classes, which says something for how well the game design went into them. I don't like the term, but have yet to find something that does them justice.

The Bazaar 26: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... en-at-arms

The Bazaar 27: https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... -follow-up

Hotrod wrote:If Palladium ever comes out with a Post-Ultimate Edition (Ultimate Edition 2.0? Even More Ultimate Edition? "Just Kidding" Edition?), I think this could form a terrific basis for character creation. It wouldn't invalidate the previous system, so you wouldn't have to replace previous books, but it would help streamline character creation, give the process a more natural feel, and cut down on bloat moving forward.

I would also like to see some aspects of a character's upbringing included in rounding out skills and abilities. You touch on this with regional differences. I'd require 2-3 skills for each region a character comes from. Characters from the NGR should start with literacy, math: basic, and maybe one other tech-related skill. Characters from England should get Faerie Lore, Demon/Monster lore, and maybe one other lore-related skill. C.S. citizens might be expected to learn hand-to-hand: Basic, Recycling, and maybe one other skill that reflects their heavily-militarized/fascist society (this could also explain why C.S. Grunts generally start off with Expert Hand-to-Hand; they get bumped up one martial art level). These are skills every adult in a given society is expected to have.

I'd also include "family background/Upbringing" skills. These are maybe two or three skills that the character actively developed in youth/childhood and continues to hone in adulthood. Similar to the Family Background skills for Knights/Palladins in Palladium Fantasy, they would be at a professional level with a modest bonus, but they would be restricted to one or two skill categories. These skills would include categories and selections normally not available to the character's ROC.

Generating a character's skills or abilities might work something like this, then:
1. Pick a Role (get a baseline set of skills/traits/abilities)
2. Pick an Occupation (Get occupation-specific skills/traits/abilities)
3. Pick a Class (Add class-specific skills/traits/abilities, choose O.C.C. Related skills, and choose Secondary Skills)
4. Pick a Region/Culture of Origin (Add a fixed set of skills, might be in lieu of a couple of Secondary Skills)
5. Pick or Roll a Family/Upbringing (Choose skills within a set category, might be in lieu of a couple of Secondary Skills)

I think my biggest problem with both of these ideas is that they seem to be a better way of designing OCCs than they are for character creation itself. If a system like this was set up that all new OCCs had to go through it would certainly reduce repetition and might have serious shot at curbing power creep. But, if this becomes the new method of character creation it just sounds more complicated. Why go through 3 separate steps when you could just have it all under the OCC with an additional chart for those background skills?

I could be wrong but this just sounds like more work.

Blue_Lion wrote:Ummm.... how does changing how you generate a character in such a significant way not invalidate all the OOC/RCCs not made with it.

If you leave existing occs as they are in every book and add things to them that is power creep and why don't stated NPCs have it. (another round of shadow edits to track down.) Why don't the world books have their local flavor skills listedd. (another reason to shadow update.) Not to mention have to think about what you add would interact wit obscure class X in book Y. (adding things in like that woulld cause allot of issues.
If it replaces existing occs then it conflicts with world books, that are suppose to show region specific occs. So while it does not invalidate the flavor of the book it would invalidate the mechanics of the book.

If you doing a full reset or a new game then it totally would work. But changing the way characters are generated would cause issues with existing books. and likely require changing them. So another round of track the shadow updates down.

Their has been a something in some of the newer books of having the option to replace a skill choice with something else.

I agree. We need to avoid, at all costs, shadow updates. Give me a new edition to buy with all the corrections and some new stuff (Federation of magic comes to mind) or just do a free errata that I can print off the website.

Curbludgeon wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:Just out of curiosity what would you build the class system around?

I took a rough stab up thread, but already would want to tweak it, and can blather a bit.

As much as I think a ground-up revision might be most useful, with the relative popularity of Savage Rifts over Palladium Rifts in most modern playspaces a clear indicator, most would argue that backwards compatibility is a hard requirement and who am I to disagree? I would argue, though, that incorporating a straightforward metric by which the relative competence of characters can be communicated is essential. In lieu of switching entirely to a point-buy mechanic, chunking aspects of a character into gated packages allows a modular approach to character building while allowing a sliding-scale method of role preservation.
To wit:

• A character is composed of a combination of a number of Skill Packages, Power Packages, and Gear Packages, represented in shorthand as a three digit hexadecimal number.
• Skill packages roughly represent capabilities/knowledge/training which would to a current understanding be possible for a human, Power Packages are those things which aren't, and Gear Packages are equipment which isn't a fundamental part of the character.
• Skill Packages consist of ~8 slots, which may be filled with a combination of skills, bonuses, and expanded choice in additional Skill Packages.* Power Packages have the same number of slots, with some sort of exchange ratio for abilities.** Gear packages would be keyed to a given setting's Tech Level(possibly expressed in Roman numerals), and secondarily to the less goofy published credit/gold prices.
• Characters begin with 2 Background Skill Packages. Characters almost entirely defined by their inherent abilities alongside a limited capacity for varied education(the, ahem, 'racial' character classes) have both Skill Packages pre-allocated. All other characters have at least one Background Skill Package filled with setting-specific general skills, selected from a number of available character Backgrounds. Many characters' second Background Skill Package selection will be for the basics of an occupation.***

*Limited-access Skill Packages are gated through tags, such as [Criminal], [Military], [Tech Level X], and [Paranormal]

**My baseline for this is the Rifts Mystic. As a start, I figure standard Major Psionics is worth 1 Package, Intuitive casting limited to character level is 2, and stuff like Open Oneself to the Supernatural/TW access/ability to draw from ley lines together is generously 1. The Rifts Mystic begins with 27 non-gated skills and some preternaturally-themed bonuses to saves and perception. This would convert to 4 Skill Packages, consisting of 1 setting-based Background Package, 1 Package in Mystically Inclined(which grants access to the [Paranormal] tag), and 2 of choice. In terms of gear Mystics don't start with much, unless they have some wacky mount. In a Rifts setting, presuming the character chose at least one MD-capable weapon proficiency, a starting Mystic could perhaps be expressed as a 442(V) character, suitable for a 10 Package game. In comparison a Glitter Boy begins with the same number of skills, many of which would be gated behind a [Tech Level VI] tag, along with some combat bonuses. The Power Armor by itself in somewhere in the 8-B range, making a Glitter Boy in Armor a ~409(VI). This would suggest the GB is roughly more potent than a starting Mystic while piloting the suit to the same degree a Mystic is compared to the GB Pilot while they are outside of the suit, which I'd say passes the sniff test.

This as good as anything else I have heard. Not sure if I like it enough to replace the current system but it has some potential.

Curbludgeon wrote:I'm undecided on other supernatural abilities value in terms of Power Packages. There's enough variety across Major and Minor Superpowers, for example, that it wouldn't just be a straight ratio. Then there are all the types of crafting, benefits for specialist practitioners of magic, Master Psionics, Nightbane Talents... which is why fantasy kitchen sink heartbreakers tend to lose steam.

***Edge cases might use the second Background Package to represent a substantial change to a character, such as forced experimentation.

To me this is why the current OCC system, for ALL of its MANY flaws is probably the best for palladium in general and Rifts in particular.

A Rifts character is a mish mash of skills, powers, gear, background and regional associations that, to me, just can't be broken down into component parts. A Glitterboy is NOT just a specialied PA pilot. They are a symbol of hope and legacy of the past. The balance for an OCC with such a powerful armor is the problems of that armor. Repairs, people wanting to take it, the limitations of mobility, and even the association of it with Free Quebec. A Power Armor pilot that looses his samson or titan flying in combat is still a PA pilot. Indeed many PA pilots would have more than one. But, what is a GB pilot who looses the GB that has been in the family for a hundred years?

A CS Grunt is not the same as a merc soldier. The CS grunt might be a deserter and many would be suspicious of him if his background were discovered. The Merc could be a dee-bee and be from almost anywhere in the world.

And then you have the problems of powers. Cyber-knights, mind melters and of course every magic OCC is defined by powers that are supposed to be unique, or at least unique enough to justify an additional OCC.

OCC bloat and repetition, both of which are perfectly demonstrated with the CS, are a real problem but I think the solution leans more to making OCCs a bit more customizable, similar to an MOS, where a new book can simply add new options to an existing OCC rather than create new ones.

Warshield73 wrote:<snip>

First I want to say that any change to the character creation and OCC system, at this point, would necessitate a complete revision and probably require new versions of existing Rifts books. Just the introduction of RUE caused a massive issue with old OCCs requiring GMs to make revisions to bring them into line. OCCs in books like Rifts England and Underseas come to mind, but really any book before RUE is a problem. They even did an update of all the Triax OCCs from WB 5 and made it official material in the Rifter.

The whole principle behind my post was as a landing pad for any new and updated rules. What I would propose is a book with Rifts 3.0 rules and updated Classes (be they OCCs again, or something like my ROC system) with some setting updates for the world post 109 PA or further. Might as well scrap everything and start from fresh, essentially replicating the experience when we first opened the Rifts RPG. Of note, I have not touched any of the Rifters, and have no intention to at this point.

Warshield73 wrote:To me this is why the current OCC system, for ALL of its MANY flaws is probably the best for palladium in general and Rifts in particular.

A Rifts character is a mish mash of skills, powers, gear, background and regional associations that, to me, just can't be broken down into component parts. A Glitterboy is NOT just a specialied PA pilot. They are a symbol of hope and legacy of the past. The balance for an OCC with such a powerful armor is the problems of that armor. Repairs, people wanting to take it, the limitations of mobility, and even the association of it with Free Quebec. A Power Armor pilot that looses his samson or titan flying in combat is still a PA pilot. Indeed many PA pilots would have more than one. But, what is a GB pilot who looses the GB that has been in the family for a hundred years?

A CS Grunt is not the same as a merc soldier. The CS grunt might be a deserter and many would be suspicious of him if his background were discovered. The Merc could be a dee-bee and be from almost anywhere in the world.

And then you have the problems of powers. Cyber-knights, mind melters and of course every magic OCC is defined by powers that are supposed to be unique, or at least unique enough to justify an additional OCC.

OCC bloat and repetition, both of which are perfectly demonstrated with the CS, are a real problem but I think the solution leans more to making OCCs a bit more customizable, similar to an MOS, where a new book can simply add new options to an existing OCC rather than create new ones.

Your comparison of classes doesn't address the elephant in the room: background does not address the duplication in OCCs (skills, bonuses, special abilities) that PB leveraged for world building.

- GB Pilot: functionally, there is zero difference between the PA Pilot OCC and the Glitter Boy OCC. All those other elements about "hope and legacy of the past" if fluff that the Class would have as background (not suggesting you get rid of it), but the fact remains the skills list, bonuses and what they bring as a class are too blindingly similar to ignore. Case in point: NGR was given the GB PA plans. I would posit they don't have the "GB Pilot" OCC but rather their own PA Pilots that simply learned how to operate the PA. I did the math: the GB Pilot is sub-standard to the PA Pilot. Coming from the guy who literally wrote the book on Free Quebec, that should demonstrate something.

- CS Grunt vs Merc Soldier. Your points on background don't address the fact that the skills, bonuses and Class function are near identical. I actually suggest a difference for Military class from Merc, but all those MOS present **exactly** the same intent. There are over 20 OCCs I can functionally wrap up into 2 without breaking a sweat. Keep the background flavour text and fluff; there is no substantive change to the characters you could design from the two than any of the 20+ OCCs I suggest get cut. You want to build a CS Grunt deserter? No change, I just suggest changes to the Class design in order to make sense within the context of the 20+ classes of bloat we don't need.

As for the Practitioners of Magic and Psionics, they are respectively bound 2 and 3. Both see a series of rationalizations as well. The level of ridiculousness isn't as much of a smack to the face as Men-at-Arms was, but still exists.

desrocfc wrote:Your comparison of classes doesn't address the elephant in the room: background does not address the duplication in OCCs (skills, bonuses, special abilities) that PB leveraged for world building.

- GB Pilot: functionally, there is zero difference between the PA Pilot OCC and the Glitter Boy OCC. All those other elements about "hope and legacy of the past" if fluff that the Class would have as background (not suggesting you get rid of it), but the fact remains the skills list, bonuses and what they bring as a class are too blindingly similar to ignore. Case in point: NGR was given the GB PA plans. I would posit they don't have the "GB Pilot" OCC but rather their own PA Pilots that simply learned how to operate the PA. I did the math: the GB Pilot is sub-standard to the PA Pilot. Coming from the guy who literally wrote the book on Free Quebec, that should demonstrate something.

- CS Grunt vs Merc Soldier. Your points on background don't address the fact that the skills, bonuses and Class function are near identical. I actually suggest a difference for Military class from Merc, but all those MOS present **exactly** the same intent. There are over 20 OCCs I can functionally wrap up into 2 without breaking a sweat. Keep the background flavour text and fluff; there is no substantive change to the characters you could design from the two than any of the 20+ OCCs I suggest get cut. You want to build a CS Grunt deserter? No change, I just suggest changes to the Class design in order to make sense within the context of the 20+ classes of bloat we don't need.

As for the Practitioners of Magic and Psionics, they are respectively bound 2 and 3. Both see a series of rationalizations as well. The level of ridiculousness isn't as much of a smack to the face as Men-at-Arms was, but still exists.

GB Pilots can also be descended pilots (family background, like we discussed earlier) or one of several options that will hopefully be included in my Glitter Boy Pilot: Expanded article in the upcoming Rifter. I would actually want the GB occupation to be markedly different from a Robot Combat pilot. If I were to do so, I'd make changes like these:
1. Limit and restrict the GB Pilot O.C.C. from taking other Robot/Power Armor: Elite skills, because they are single-suit-type specialists.
2. Include more skills related to the maintenance and repair of their suits, because they are custodians of what are usually multi-generational suits.
3. Include some unique background skills of options depending on what kind of GB pilot association they come from (FQ or FQ-supported, freelance, Black Market-supported, Republican-supported, NGR-supported, or independent).
4. Include some skills that reflect GB Pilot culture and heritage.

As for mercs vs military grunts, I think it's important to have some mechanical differences between the two, skill-wise. Mercs should have more rogue skill options, should have a wider set of options in general, and a more a la carte approach to choosing skills. Grunt skills should reflect more formal training and skills that come in packages. Mercs should focus more on scavenging, looting, and providing their own logistical support, maintenance, repairs, et cetera, while grunts depend more on specialty troops and organizations for that.

A "build your own merc" occupational class with very few O.C.C. skills but lots of options might be kind of neat, actually.

Hotrod wrote:

desrocfc wrote:<snip>

GB Pilots can also be descended pilots (family background, like we discussed earlier) or one of several options that will hopefully be included in my Glitter Boy Pilot: Expanded article in the upcoming Rifter. I would actually want the GB occupation to be markedly different from a Robot Combat pilot. If I were to do so, I'd make changes like these:
1. Limit and restrict the GB Pilot O.C.C. from taking other Robot/Power Armor: Elite skills, because they are single-suit-type specialists.
2. Include more skills related to the maintenance and repair of their suits, because they are custodians of what are usually multi-generational suits.
3. Include some unique background skills of options depending on what kind of GB pilot association they come from (FQ or FQ-supported, freelance, Black Market-supported, Republican-supported, NGR-supported, or independent).
4. Include some skills that reflect GB Pilot culture and heritage.

As for mercs vs military grunts, I think it's important to have some mechanical differences between the two, skill-wise. Mercs should have more rogue skill options, should have a wider set of options in general, and a more a la carte approach to choosing skills. Grunt skills should reflect more formal training and skills that come in packages. Mercs should focus more on scavenging, looting, and providing their own logistical support, maintenance, repairs, et cetera, while grunts depend more on specialty troops and organizations for that.

A "build your own merc" occupational class with very few O.C.C. skills but lots of options might be kind of neat, actually.

Not having seen your article (yet), basically everything you describe by way of specifics to the GB Pilot Class is what I would propose. I've already suggested they are the only one that I would elect to start with Power Armour Combat: Elite (GB); I would allow the PA Pilot the option to gain PA Combat: Elite (GB) as an Other Skill, for something like two skill selections to represent PA Pilots from NGR or elsewhere.

Short of actually presenting a detailed version to compare, your thoughts on the Military Soldier vs Mercenary Soldier mirror my own.