Looks like we made ENWorld!
http://www.enworld.org/
AWESOMENESS!!!!
:thumbsup:
Congrats.
So how should we go about doing the NPC database? We could make a google site or something different.
Also I would like to know how we should handle mooks, ordinaries, or whatever you want to call them, as well.
Based on the MSRD, I would suggest that ordinaries get the following:
Modern Hero class;
Have background, skills and feats;
No archetype;
No Talent or Training, except if bought through feat;
No Action points;
Basic NPC array (13,12,11,10,9,8);
Random hit points
They gain feats and ability score as any other character.
What do you think?
Mordo, that's essentially what I was going to suggest with the exception that they can buy training from any Archetype Training Tree without having to buy the "Cross-trained" Talent.
Actually... Do you guys think allowing the Modern Hero base class to have the unique Talent "Cross-trained: Any" would be sufficient incentive for a player to not take an Archetype?
Mordo, that's essentially what I was going to suggest with the exception that they can buy training from any Archetype Training Tree without having to buy the "Cross-trained" Talent.
Actually... Do you guys think allowing the Modern Hero base class to have the unique Talent "Cross-trained: Any" would be sufficient incentive for a player to not take an Archetype?
Actually I wouldn't allow "Cross-training" for ordinaries. I don't mind if they spend a feat to get a talent or a training, but otherwise I believe it would be too much.
And since we are looking at consistency, I would not allow "Cross-training: any" for the base class, as you will have to ruled it out for ordinaries, and it don't much for the base class.
Instead, what I would have done is a vast pool of training accessible to all Modern Hero, and in the archetype description state which are the only available training for this archetype. So this mean that the archetype override the "choose any training" by "choose any training of the following". This is the restriction for choosing an archetype that gives you; class skills, modified HD, BAB, Saves etc.
And if you have an archetype and want to dip, you then use the cross training talent.
You might want to keep some training accessible only to specific archetype.
Is this more simple, or will this just over complixified the system?
Actually I wouldn't allow "Cross-training" for ordinaries. I don't mind if they spend a feat to get a talent or a training, but otherwise I believe it would be too much.
Ok, as far as I can tell, there is NO way for the Base Class (and thus our ordinaries) to gain any Training ability at all. Each and every Training ability is listed under a particular Archetype. Even if an "Base Hero" or an "ordinary" takes the "Extra Training" feat, there's no list of "General Training Abilities" for Modern Heroes to select.
And since we are looking at consistency, I would not allow "Cross-training: any" for the base class, as you will have to ruled it out for ordinaries, and it don't much for the base class.
My counter-argument is this Talent would let a non-Archetyped Modern Hero select *any* Training ability for which they meet the prereq's. As it stands, a Modern Hero can only select a Training ability from the Archetype they selected (and, if they took the "Cross-trained" feat, the Training abilities of their cross-trained archetype). I believe allowing a non-Archetyped Modern Hero to select from *any* Training ability is a *huge* boost to the class.
Instead, what I would have done is a vast pool of training accessible to all Modern Hero, and in the archetype description state which are the only available training for this archetype. So this mean that the archetype override the "choose any training" by "choose any training of the following". This is the restriction for choosing an archetype that gives you; class skills, modified HD, BAB, Saves etc.
And if you have an archetype and want to dip, you then use the cross training talent.
You might want to keep some training accessible only to specific archetype.Is this more simple, or will this just over complixified the system?
I tend to agree with your first statement in this block. If you don't take an Archetype, it doesn't look like you get much at all. I can't see where a base Modern Hero gets *any* Training abilities, as I pointed out earlier. The only thing in a base Modern Hero's favor - such as it is - is that he can convert a Training ability into an Extra Talent or Extra Feat. But that is a sub-optimal approach, in my opinion.
Are these the right save progressions?
.
.
.
.
.
Save Progressions
Slow Med Fast
+0 +1 +2
+0 +2 +3
+1 +2 +3
+1 +2 +4
+1 +3 +4
+2 +3 +5
+2 +4 +5
+2 +4 +6
+3 +4 +6
+3 +5 +7
+3 +5 +7
+4 +6 +8
+4 +6 +8
+4 +6 +9
+5 +7 +9
+5 +7 +10
+5 +8 +10
+6 +8 +11
+6 +8 +11
+6 +9 +12
Congrats.
So how should we go about doing the NPC database? We could make a google site or something different.
Also I would like to know how we should handle mooks, ordinaries, or whatever you want to call them, as well.
I don't think they should be disallowed archetypes. I would not even make a mook rule. I would just create different levels of NPCs such as the crooked politician, who may have no fighting skills at all, but his body guard with soldier levels might.
Other Examples:
Petty Thug CR 1
Streep Cop CR 2
Mercencary CR 3
Crooker Politician 1(Mayor CR 4)--His CR is from his ability to use Red Tape to tie you up. Killing him most likely only causes more trouble.
Crime Lord CR 8-Has connections to political people and is decent in fight so he has you trying to get the judge that he bribed or intimidated not giving you a search warrant if you are part of the legal system, or he frames you for a crime you did not commit. After you get through all of that he still might kick your butt. I am thinking of a less super villain version of kingpin from Marvel Comics.
I don't mind important NPC's(ordinaries?) getting the same things as player, but the average mooks should be limited. I don't want some random street thug knowing martial arts, being skilled in several weapons, being a computer expert, and having a Master's Degree in ancient history.
PS:Sudden idea-->NPC's get their talents and training at a slower rate. That way they have HD close to the PC's meaning they won't fall over too fast in a fight, but they don't have all the abilities of a PC either. It is king of like the fighter in pathfinder vs the warrior class.
I tend to agree with your first statement in this block. If you don't take an Archetype, it doesn't look like you get much at all. I can't see where a base Modern Hero...
I may be wrong but I'm assuming that a Modern Hero without any archetype, can use the "Cross-Training" talent to get access to an archetype talent, without commiting to that archetype.
I don't mind important NPC's(ordinaries?) getting the same things as player, but the average mooks should be limited. I don't want some random street thug knowing martial arts, being skilled in several weapons, being a computer expert, and having a Master's Degree in ancient history.
PS:Sudden idea-->NPC's get their talents and training at a slower rate. That way they have HD close to the PC's meaning they won't fall over too fast in a fight, but they don't have all the abilities of a PC either. It is king of like the fighter in pathfinder vs the warrior class.
I don't know if you are familiar with d20Modern or not, but ordinaries were the equivalent of low level NPCs with a few NPC class. As d20Modern don't have NPC classes, they were given base class (strong hero, fast hero, tough hero, smart hero, dedicated hero, charistmatic hero) but without acces to any talent from these class.
Regular or boss NPCs had full access to base, advance and prestige classes and were also getting action point.
I tend to agree with your first statement in this block. If you don't take an Archetype, it doesn't look like you get much at all. I can't see where a base Modern Hero...I may be wrong but I'm assuming that a Modern Hero without any archetype, can use the "Cross-Training" talent to get access to an archetype talent, without commiting to that archetype.
I don't mind important NPC's(ordinaries?) getting the same things as player, but the average mooks should be limited. I don't want some random street thug knowing martial arts, being skilled in several weapons, being a computer expert, and having a Master's Degree in ancient history.
PS:Sudden idea-->NPC's get their talents and training at a slower rate. That way they have HD close to the PC's meaning they won't fall over too fast in a fight, but they don't have all the abilities of a PC either. It is king of like the fighter in pathfinder vs the warrior class.
I don't know if you are familiar with d20Modern or not, but ordinaries were the equivalent of low level NPCs with a few NPC class. As d20Modern don't have NPC classes, they were given base class (strong hero, fast hero, tough hero, smart hero, dedicated hero, charistmatic hero) but without acces to any talent from these class.
Regular or boss NPCs had full access to base, advance and prestige classes and were also getting action point.
I played it, but never DM'd it so I didn't have to learn all the rules. I will probably have different categories of NPC's. Some with not talents, and some with less talent than the PC's except for boss fights maybe.
Actually... Do you guys think allowing the Modern Hero base class to have the unique Talent "Cross-trained: Any" would be sufficient incentive for a player to not take an Archetype?
Hey Doc,
To clear things up... here is your solution. A mook takes the modern hero class, doesn't take an archtype but when he gains a training at 2nd level he is able to take the cross training into whatever he wants... esentially "having someone else train him" to do what he wants to learn. He just starts without one. After that he goes pretty normally.The advantage of taking an archatype is that would change his progressions in BAB and saves. That why any PC would want to take the archatypes.
So is a Modern Hero with no Archetype able to select a Training ability from any Archetype's list?
(eta) At least, as long as he meets the prerequisites?
I’ll see what we can add for “ordinaries” in the update. I think the idea of the class “Modern Hero” is someone who stands out of the ordinary.
We want to stay “Pathfinder Compatible” and work within the system and not re-write rules already there.
I think, (quick and easy), you could let the Fantasy Classes and the NPC classes: (Commoner, Expert, etc.) and allow them to use the modern feats. You could also let them take the backgrounds and disadvantages (and give a bonus feat instead of a bonus Talent).
I am not sure of the Cross Training, I think for game balance you would want to keep it unique to the Modern Hero class, but it could become a feat and that would allow any class to take it.
If a Modern Hero doesn’t take an Archetype, you can still cross train by taking one of the “Cross Training” Training Abilities, (btw – I might move them to Talents to avoid confusion), and meet any pre-requirements.
@Kevin - rules for ordinaries/mooks/NPC classes could be its own supplement. I don't think it necessarily has to be in the update.
What are the "“Cross Training” Training Abilities"? I guess I still do not quite understand how cross-training works.
(My point of view - I am coming at this system *not* using HeroLab and *not* accepting the existence of any of the fantasy classes from the Core Book. I don't *think* that colors my stance beyond use...)
I’ll see what we can add for “ordinaries” in the update. I think the idea of the class “Modern Hero” is someone who stands out of the ordinary.
We want to stay “Pathfinder Compatible” and work within the system and not re-write rules already there.
I think, (quick and easy), you could let the Fantasy Classes and the NPC classes: (Commoner, Expert, etc.) and allow them to use the modern feats. You could also let them take the backgrounds and disadvantages (and give a bonus feat instead of a bonus Talent).I am not sure of the Cross Training, I think for game balance you would want to keep it unique to the Modern Hero class, but it could become a feat and that would allow any class to take it.
I'm not familiar, with the OGL stuff, but couldn't you put all what is need to create a character from scratch using only the Modern Hero document without having to go back and forth between PFSRD and MSRD to find, lets say, the feat available to my character at creation.
I know it will get page count up, but like many stated, many will print only specific sections. Having table for talent and training in the like of the one fr feats, where you get the name, pre-req and effect summarized will mostly be the only thing I would personnally print.
For us to be “Pathfinder Compliant” , this set of rules has to be a supplement to the core rules.
|
I understand the reason for wanting to be completely Pathfinder compatible but I kind of feel the genres don't mix completely and really do need their own identity. You will already be making completely new rules for guns, magic, vehicles, computers, etc. that the only thing that really is taken from Pathfinder is advancement, combat, most skills, and some feats.
To be honest I would prefer a modern system that worked kind of like how d20 Modern worked with D&D 3e. They were close enough that conversion wouldn't be to hard but different enough to where you don't need the D&D core rules to play modern.
I agree, there are something’s we had to do to remain compliant that really didn’t make scenes in the modern setting. But if we want to say “Pathfinder Compatible” we had to do.
I understand the reason for wanting to be completely Pathfinder compatible but I kind of feel the genres don't mix completely and really do need their own identity. You will already be making completely new rules for guns, magic, vehicles, computers, etc. that the only thing that really is taken from Pathfinder is advancement, combat, most skills, and some feats.
To be honest I would prefer a modern system that worked kind of like how d20 Modern worked with D&D 3e. They were close enough that conversion wouldn't be to hard but different enough to where you don't need the D&D core rules to play modern.
And Super Genius Games is trying something similar with their newly launched Anachronistic Adventurers line with The Enforcer. But like Kevin is expressing, there are some things that have to be done to remain compliant in order to keep the Pathfinder Compatible status. I imagine certain things will be tackled and/or addressed in supplements that may not have to respect that compliance issue, but by that time I reckon GRC hopes that they've built enough of a reputation and/or following for the casual fan to understand that and acquire those w/o the nuances of compatibility as they tackle supplemental rules that breaks (or supplants) it.
Looks like I missed a great discussion, thanks to being without internet for a couple weeks. I just got back online, and found this discussion almost right away. I skimmed the PDF, curious to see where you'd taken things, since a Modern game based on the d20 mechanics has been somehting I've been interested in doing for a while. I have most of the original Wizards stuff, as well as a few old 3pp suplements, and anything that picks up the ball and carries it forward is a step in the right direction in my book. I'll be honest, I mostly skipped right to the points that were for me, points of departure from the old d20 Modern, to see how you handled them, and found it a mixed bag. Specifically:
1. I like the approach your taking with the single class, multiple variations. In d20M, I found often that the only way to get all of the talents and class skills that fit a given concept was to multi-class. I haven't had time yet to see how workable the specifics are, but it was for me an encouraging start.
2. Bravo on making armor do DR instead of adding to AC. I can see the point of AC in a fantasy setting, but with modern firearms? Not so much. I am working on my own Modern damage system, it's meant as an optional system, because it completely reworks damage, firearms, and armor. But some of what you've offered for armor would mesh with it well, and even solve a couple of sticking points I have run into. I'm especially impressed by the Fortification rules.
3. I'm a bit disappointed that you stuck with the "One shot per attack" rule for semi-automatic firarms (and even modern double-action revolvers, for that matter), but I grudgingly acknowledge why. Again, it's something I've put a lot of thought into, and I've reached the conclusion that any system that allows for multiple shots also adds more layers of complexity to the game. I'm ok with that, for my own play, but I know people who would be completely turned off by it.
I look forward to getting a chance to try it out.
I agree about the ROF, in one combat round you really could unload the entire clip in some weapons. It's a game mechanic for balance, IDK.
I did increase the critical threat range and multiplier on firearms to make them more deadly. Had mix reviews on that.
I agree about the ROF, in one combat round you really could unload the entire clip in some weapons. It's a game mechanic for balance, IDK.
I can see that being the reasoning for a system that covers multiple genres. But it sort of nerfs guns for grittier, more realism "Guns are deadly" games. Like I said, I think the answer is an OPTIONAL system. If you're curious, contact me off-forum and I'd love to bounce my ideas off someone.
I did increase the critical threat range and multiplier on firearms to make them more deadly. Had mix reviews on that.
You'll get no complaints from me.
MCC - I'm interested in discussing it with you. I was looking at creating much of what the good gents at GRC just handed us, in order to put together a space-opera set. If you want to drop me an email, remove the _ from my forum id and add the proper gmail suffix behind it.
Looks like we are website issues again, sorry, back as soon as possable
We are back up! Sorry for the inconvenience.
Here's a tip. Don't code your site in Flash. Seriously this a mistake from last decade. I almost totally wrote you guys off becaue all I got was a bright blue blank nothing when I hit your site with my iPad.
Good thing I checked it with iSwifter. You should try your best to avoid Flash where possible. Maybe you want to give Wallaby a try and get your site functional, nothing seems complex enough to require flash.
I know you guys are small and have put a good deal of work into getting the rules revised, but a all flash site doesn't look good.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/
We will see if our web-page developer can convert it for us. Right now we are going to see what art we can find, finish the new format for easy reading, clarify the existing rules, add what we left out, add new material, add some fluff and post it all on RPGNow and other outlets.
We are thinking a week or two to do all that.
|
Ran a short "shakedown" game of 4 PC's this Sunday, modelling a post-apocalyptic, modern-era North America.
The game itself went exceptionally well.
The ease of customization between Archetype, Background, Talents, and Drawbacks allowed for some really fun characters to be made, while maintaining tactical viability.
I was even able to drop regular old Bestiary (Orcs & Plague Zombies) critters right in, without difficulty.
One question arose, though.
The Modern Hero has skill points listed at 2+Int, while the Archetypes have a regular old number (5/level, etc).
Is that intentional? Do the archetypes just get X amount of skill points, regardless of Int?
Likewise, Humans still get their regular +2 to any stat, +1 Skill Point, +1 Feat, and the ability to take Favored Class: Modern Hero, correct?
That's how I ruled it at the table (and that Archetypes get X+Int skills). If that's not how you intended, clarification would be great.
Otherwise, fantastic resource. We managed to create 4 brand new PC's, without really knowing the CharGen system (without HeroLab or other software), in about 20-30 min/PC, and jump right into the game pretty darn quickly.
I can't wait to see what else you've got cooking up.
Glad you like the rules:
All skills should add in Int mod, so an Archetype would be x+Int skills
Yes, Humans still get all the Pathfinder core rules benfits, and Modern hero as Favored class.
|
|
Glad you like the rules:
All skills should add in Int mod, so an Archetype would be x+Int skillsYes, Humans still get all the Pathfinder core rules benfits, and Modern hero as Favored class.
Great, I figured that but getting a definitie answer so quickly rocks even more.
I will keep you posted as to our game's progress. I'm sure I'll be asking more questions as well. :)
Glad you like the rules:
All skills should add in Int mod, so an Archetype would be x+Int skillsYes, Humans still get all the Pathfinder core rules benfits, and Modern hero as Favored class.
Makes turning "Modern Heroes" into "Future Heroes" *so* much easier that way...
This actually steals some thunder from Super Genius Games with their Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer product. Not saying this is bad, because I can tell from the timing of both releases that they were developed at about the same time. You steal the thunder by being free.
Just remember with d20 Modern the humans +1 skill point was included by default. Which ils why they had odd value skill points. Is this your assumption as well? It becomes important for people trying Urban Arcana style games with non-human race options.
Guardians of Order also made that mistake when writing d20 BESM and included it in the base price of the classes.
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.
At RPGNow you can download a sample of the product & it gives you a little bit of what it is.
|
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.
Obviously we're thrilled anyone wants to pick up our material for any reason. :) I do want to note I think it's not quite the "same" material. It looks to me that what GRC is doing is building a rules-set primarily designed to work on its own for adventures set in a modern scenario.
Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer does tread similar ground in that we present a modern fighting-man and his guns, and some rules on PL. But as a stand-alone product is focuses on adding such characters to a typical Pathfinder fantasy campaign. It's designed for a 1-to-1 parity with fantasy classes in a fantasy setting. And while it's the first in a line, and eventually the combined classes, rules modules, and equipment will form enough material to run an entirely-modern game, I suspect it'll usually get used more for modern-urban-fantasy than supernatural-free action-adventure games.
But I have been wrong about how our fans will use our material before. :)
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.
Hey Doc, did you get the second email I shot you, with the attachment?
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.Obviously we're thrilled anyone wants to pick up our material for any reason. :) I do want to note I think it's not quite the "same" material. It looks to me that what GRC is doing is building a rules-set primarily designed to work on its own for adventures set in a modern scenario.
Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer does tread similar ground in that we present a modern fighting-man and his guns, and some rules on PL. But as a stand-alone product is focuses on adding such characters to a typical Pathfinder fantasy campaign. It's designed for a 1-to-1 parity with fantasy classes in a fantasy setting. And while it's the first in a line, and eventually the combined classes, rules modules, and equipment will form enough material to run an entirely-modern game, I suspect it'll usually get used more for modern-urban-fantasy than supernatural-free action-adventure games.
But I have been wrong about how our fans will use our material before. :)
I plan on getting it as soon as I can manage. I like the idea behind the product. Though from my mentioned sample, the class appeared a little weak compared to the fighters & such they will compete against. I freely admit that it was just the preview download so I really want to get the full product to make my own decision.
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.Hey Doc, did you get the second email I shot you, with the attachment?
Yessir I did! I've been up to my eyeballs in trying to rebuild/cobble together 4 older desktop computers and move my writing out into my shop, so I've not had a chance to print it out yet. And apparently, I failed to let you *know* I got it and appreciate you sharing it! bad me!
My plan is to print it out either tonight or tomorrow, as I'm wrapping up a writing project and will now have the time to properly read and digest the material.
Obviously we're thrilled anyone wants to pick up our material for any reason. :) I do want to note I think it's not quite the "same" material. It looks to me that what GRC is doing is building a rules-set primarily designed to work on its own for adventures set in a modern scenario.
Excellent, because that was my understanding of the approach SGG was taking.
Ever read Jerry Pournelle's "janissaries" books?
I'll have "Enforcer" by the weekend. In fact, despite having Modern Heroes in hand and working on chewing it to pieces, when I saw SGG announce "Enforcer," it shot to the top of "The Next Game Item I Buy" list - precisely to see how SGG handles the same material.Hey Doc, did you get the second email I shot you, with the attachment?Yessir I did! I've been up to my eyeballs in trying to rebuild/cobble together 4 older desktop computers and move my writing out into my shop, so I've not had a chance to print it out yet. And apparently, I failed to let you *know* I got it and appreciate you sharing it! bad me!
My plan is to print it out either tonight or tomorrow, as I'm wrapping up a writing project and will now have the time to properly read and digest the material.
It's all good, as long as I know you got it, take your time perusing it. I'm already working on some additional material, specifically covering shotguns and alternate ammunitions (glaser, AP, frangible, etc.), with the help of input from my buddy/GM.
|
|
Ever read Jerry Pournelle's "janissaries" books?
Yep! One of my favorite bits was in the first book, when modern military theory won the swords-and-shields battle, with a firearm sued only once... to ensure the shooter's own men didn't break ranks.
A perfect example of how I foresee the enforcer being used.
:thumbsup:
I like how you think.
I love all this modern-y goodness coming out right now! I just wish I could figure out how to pull off desktop publishing with OpenOffice, because I have something I'm working on for Modern Heroes that I would like to wrap up in a tidy - if amateurish - bundle and hand to the world.
I agree that the “Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer” and “Modern Heroes” are similar, but a bit different.
I haven’t seen “The Enforcer”; it looks very cool, but seems to have a specific setting.
While Modern Heroes is a generic modern setting rule set. We do have specific settings planned to enhance the core rules and there are few previews in the back of the book.
We are very glad to see the Modern Pathfinder material coming out and wish everyone good luck!
|
The attack bonus just give you a +1 to you attack. Your Archetype will give your attack, hit dice and save rates. The rates are the same as the Pathfinder Role Playing Game rates. I will see if I can find a link on the prd of the rates and post them.
Not sure I'm reading this right. I believe that Pathfinder has only good and poor saves. Your version of modern appears to be utilizing the advanced classes' saves (and not the original core classes, which had only good and poor save progressions). My thought would be to simplify as Pathfinder did and have only good and poor save progressions. Makes it easier and much more compatible.
I agree that the “Anachronistic Adventurers: The Enforcer” and “Modern Heroes” are similar, but a bit different.
I haven’t seen “The Enforcer”; it looks very cool, but seems to have a specific setting.
While Modern Heroes is a generic modern setting rule set. We do have specific settings planned to enhance the core rules and there are few previews in the back of the book.
We are very glad to see the Modern Pathfinder material coming out and wish everyone good luck!
It actually has different weapon proficiencies depending on what age you are using such as stone age, medieval, modern, future and so on. I like a lot of what you have done though. I will use a similar approach if I ever get around to working on a very low magic version of the game.