Feat walls (a rant)


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've been playing 5e for 8 months now.

This past week, I've spent my free time trying to make a simple d20 modern/future character for a space game - and man does that remind me how much I hated feat walls. I've been spoiled by 5e!

It's so difficult to make a simple character in that game. I didn't really know the system, but I do know pathfinder and figured it shouldn't be that difficult. Boy was I wrong. Thinking about it, I'm wondering if pathfinder is just as difficult for those entering in with no prior experience.

Here's my experience: I wanted to make a simple space/colonial marine. I've been through basic training in real life, so I know what skills and proficiencies my guy should have coming right out of training. Also, he's in space, so things like land navigation should be switched to space navigation. And instead of knowing how to drive a car, maybe he knows how to fly small space craft. Bam. That's me as a colonial marine in space. Simple, right?

But no - you only start off with one proficiency - simple weapons. To use rifles, I need to pick up personal firearms proficiency. To use the standard military armor, I need light armor proficiency. To pilot a space craft, I need spacecraft proficiency (which is, by itself, 5 different feats). And now I'm out of feats for 1st level, so I can't even use the other weapons I should be proficient in, like grenades or machine guns. Oh! And, that doesn't even include the ranged combat feats like point blank shot --> precise shot. Or zero-G training (because what space combatant wouldn't have training in zero g?), which is locked behind 4 ranks of tumble (4?!? Why?!?), which happens to not be a class skill, so it's two points per rank - yeah, remember that from d20? There's something PF got right; took away the extra point cost for cross class skills. And then the players guide recommends I take feats in piloting a mecha, because it's been rumored that this space station may have some ancient mecha in it ("historians claim this is false, but there's always a bit of truth to some rumors") - but what if we don't get to that part of the campaign until level 5 or level 10 - that's 5-10 levels of a wasted feat! Argh!

Ok. Take a breath.

So. Despite all my ranting, I'm getting used to the system. But it really increases my love for 5e's simplicity and how easy it is to make a character and just jump right into the game. And now I understand why one of my players wanted to abandon feats altogether when we switched to 5e.

(Oh, and don't even get me started on how wealth and equipment work in that game - like kits that don't come with everything needed to use the kit - you have to finish the kit off buy purchasing extra stuff elsewhere. Wtf?!?)

God I hope starfinder isn't going to be this bad.


I played D20 Modern a few times and my opinion of it is very, very low. From the over simplification of handgun damage (a 9mm and a .45 do the same exact damage and have the same features, making the 9mm far superior due to carrying far more ammo - somehow), to the idiotic requirement to have several levels in something else before you can even begin playing your concept (I tried to make a psychic, and 5 levels of combat scenarios as an unpowered smart hero type was the opposite of fun).

D20 modern is now one of the few games where if it comes up I return to the group when it's over.


I also really enjoy the simplicity of 5e - it moves the focus away from building a character to playing a character.

That being said, I think there is often a difference of opinion of what a level one character represents. When you look back at the origins of D&D, a level 1 character was incredibly fragile and had basically no special abilities. Level one was meant to represent just starting out on a career as an adventurer.

Throughout the editions, level one has become bloated to the point that a level one character is now far more powerful than the average person in the world. Even considering that, space colonial marine might still be beyond level one.

Lastly - house rules and or making your own system are always options, and often times going through such an exercise will teach you about things that work and things that don't work.


I don't agree that level one characters are more powerful than the average human even now. They're relatively fragile, have minimal combat ability, and any magic they can cast could be done better by advanced enough technology.

It's around level 4-5 or so where HP alone starts to make them action hero level sturdy and about as good at fighting as a well trained soldier.

It's that way for most systems I've played, I'm not surprised d20 Modern shares the same paradigm of "level one is basically barely trained, maybe even not fully trained".


I was under the impression that Backgrounds, or whatever they are called, are supposed to help cover stuff like this.


bookrat wrote:

I've been playing 5e for 8 months now.

This past week, I've spent my free time trying to make a simple d20 modern/future character for a space game - and man does that remind me how much I hated feat walls. I've been spoiled by 5e!

It's so difficult to make a simple character in that game. I didn't really know the system, but I do know pathfinder and figured it shouldn't be that difficult. Boy was I wrong. Thinking about it, I'm wondering if pathfinder is just as difficult for those entering in with no prior experience.

Here's my experience: I wanted to make a simple space/colonial marine. I've been through basic training in real life, so I know what skills and proficiencies my guy should have coming right out of training. Also, he's in space, so things like land navigation should be switched to space navigation. And instead of knowing how to drive a car, maybe he knows how to fly small space craft. Bam. That's me as a colonial marine in space. Simple, right?

*snip*

I've been thinking along the same lines. Though it uses the Swords & Wizardry White Box engine, White Star by James Spahn was an eye-opener in terms of providing a rules light D&D based science fiction game.

I think all you'd really need to do to make your space marine in 5e is build a regular fighter (or whichever martial class you prefer) who's proficient with the futuristic weapons from the DMG, and with Vehicles (Space). Sadly, that last proficiency doesn't exist anywhere yet, but home brewing it for 5e seems much simpler than using the D20 Future rules.


Nohwear wrote:
I was under the impression that Backgrounds, or whatever they are called, are supposed to help cover stuff like this.

In the d20 modern/future system, they're call occupations. That give you two class skills and a single feat. That's it.

Not even as comprehensive as a 5e background, which gives you two skills, a language, and a tool proficiency, plus a feature to provide narrative power.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

D20 Modern didn't exactly set the world on fire, and your situation here is only part of why.

The only good mileage I ever got out of it was running a quick "normal people vs.zombies" scenario, and that only worked because the players were already conversant in the basics of the d20 system- it saved me teaching them the mechanics of All Flesh Must Be Eaten! or the like.

It was clunky, experimental, and a little too tied to D&D to really feel like a whole system.


bookrat wrote:
<snip> Thinking about it, I'm wondering if pathfinder is just as difficult for those entering in with no prior experience. <snip>

By the numberless gods of Golarian, you betcha!

Feat trees were an especially distasteful flavor of suck when I found out how well hamstrung my fighter was due to forced choices (aka prerequisites).

Same experience with 3.5E, though PF might have seemed worse because going into it I thought it was going to be better. As it turns out all the better parts were homebrew.

*shrug*


Hitdice wrote:

I think all you'd really need to do to make your space marine in 5e is build a regular fighter (or whichever martial class you prefer) who's proficient with the futuristic weapons from the DMG, and with Vehicles (Space). Sadly, that last proficiency doesn't exist anywhere yet, but home brewing it for 5e seems much simpler than using the D20 Future rules.

If you're playing in a futuristic setting you're likely going to have those proficiencies present. Vehicle proficiencies are tool proficiencies, and if the tool exists, you should be able to get proficiency in it.

In the same vein futuristic weapons would probably be a standard proficiency for fighters in such a setting. Or more likely those weapons would be martial weapons, which automatically add them to the fighter's list.

Making a futuristic setting for 5e is the more difficult bit. Because the firearms and futuristic weapons in the DMG are not written for a setting where they are commonplace, but rather for a Numeria-type scenario, where they are artifacts that the characters who are from an otherwise medieval setting, can find them similarly to magic items. If you make a setting where such weapons are prevalent you would have to rebalance them to be more along the lines of what medieval weapons are like in the PHB right now. So the balance, not between modern and ancient weapons but between weapons and EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE GAME is preserved.
The other option would be to balance all damage dealing and HP-targeting spells (like sleep for example), monster damage and all hit points in the game so that your guns aren't the most powerful thing you have in the setting.

Sovereign Court

You might also want to see if you can pick up D20 Future, since that kind of sort of bridges the gap between the base core book and the futuristic setting. No promises that it will solve all of your problems, though...


Threeshades wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

I think all you'd really need to do to make your space marine in 5e is build a regular fighter (or whichever martial class you prefer) who's proficient with the futuristic weapons from the DMG, and with Vehicles (Space). Sadly, that last proficiency doesn't exist anywhere yet, but home brewing it for 5e seems much simpler than using the D20 Future rules.

If you're playing in a futuristic setting you're likely going to have those proficiencies present. Vehicle proficiencies are tool proficiencies, and if the tool exists, you should be able to get proficiency in it.

In the same vein futuristic weapons would probably be a standard proficiency for fighters in such a setting. Or more likely those weapons would be martial weapons, which automatically add them to the fighter's list.

Making a futuristic setting for 5e is the more difficult bit. Because the firearms and futuristic weapons in the DMG are not written for a setting where they are commonplace, but rather for a Numeria-type scenario, where they are artifacts that the characters who are from an otherwise medieval setting, can find them similarly to magic items. If you make a setting where such weapons are prevalent you would have to rebalance them to be more along the lines of what medieval weapons are like in the PHB right now. So the balance, not between modern and ancient weapons but between weapons and EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE GAME is preserved.
The other option would be to balance all damage dealing and HP-targeting spells (like sleep for example), monster damage and all hit points in the game so that your guns aren't the most powerful thing you have in the setting.

In my own homebrew the only real problem I've run into is that the laser pistol's 3d6 damage feels a too high for a simple weapon, and the PCs with simple weapon proficiency want lasers too, because lasers are cool. Introducing the 3d4 damage Laser BB gun! (Yes, that's what we've been calling it.)

I chose not to reduce the damage of futuristic weapons (just because I feel like lasers should be more damaging than arrows; yes, I know a person in the real world can be killed by a single arrow, just humor me) but I have made resistance to radiant damage easily accessible. Antimatter weapons are still terrifying for all concerned though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

I think all you'd really need to do to make your space marine in 5e is build a regular fighter (or whichever martial class you prefer) who's proficient with the futuristic weapons from the DMG, and with Vehicles (Space). Sadly, that last proficiency doesn't exist anywhere yet, but home brewing it for 5e seems much simpler than using the D20 Future rules.

If you're playing in a futuristic setting you're likely going to have those proficiencies present. Vehicle proficiencies are tool proficiencies, and if the tool exists, you should be able to get proficiency in it.

In the same vein futuristic weapons would probably be a standard proficiency for fighters in such a setting. Or more likely those weapons would be martial weapons, which automatically add them to the fighter's list.

Making a futuristic setting for 5e is the more difficult bit. Because the firearms and futuristic weapons in the DMG are not written for a setting where they are commonplace, but rather for a Numeria-type scenario, where they are artifacts that the characters who are from an otherwise medieval setting, can find them similarly to magic items. If you make a setting where such weapons are prevalent you would have to rebalance them to be more along the lines of what medieval weapons are like in the PHB right now. So the balance, not between modern and ancient weapons but between weapons and EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE GAME is preserved.
The other option would be to balance all damage dealing and HP-targeting spells (like sleep for example), monster damage and all hit points in the game so that your guns aren't the most powerful thing you have in the setting.

In my own homebrew the only real problem I've run into is that the laser pistol's 3d6 damage feels a too high for a simple weapon, and the PCs with simple weapon proficiency want lasers too, because lasers are cool. Introducing the 3d4 damage Laser BB gun! (Yes, that's what we've been calling it.)

I chose not...

I've been working on a somewhat scifiy modern setting asd well. The state of the art for weapons is more or less modern day firearms, but in order to keep the damage in the same scale, i sort of scaled up the setting itself. If you were to carry an olden timy longsowrd it would effectively only deal 1d4 damage rather than 1d8. But you can get get power weapon versions of all your old medieval weapons, in the form of energy infused or high frequency vibrating blades which deal the normal amount of damage. As a result normal humans and animals only have half the HD and natural weapon damage dice as well. The PCs and all the serious enemies are considered to be just a lot more badass as a result. Which fits with the setting i'm building because its supposed to be over the top action movie style.


Lorathorn wrote:
You might also want to see if you can pick up D20 Future, since that kind of sort of bridges the gap between the base core book and the futuristic setting. No promises that it will solve all of your problems, though...

The books I'm using are d20 modern, d20 future, and d20 future tech. It gets highly complex. Especially after using 5e for 8 months.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of people didn't notice the high barrier to entry for Pathfinder because they were already playing 3.5 and it was an easy transition. Unless you were new of course. It's easier to see looking back from 5E because of it's relative simplicity.

If you want a simple fast D&Desque science fiction RPG try Stars Without Number. It's an OGL (and OSR) game with great sandbox support and scratches that Traveller itch rather well. There are a number of supplements for it and a related (and compatible) Gamma World type game / setting called Otherdust. Mutation by nanites for that old school mutant feeling. They are both excellent and there are a number of free products (PDF) by the author that can add to your game. Really good stuff imho.

Sovereign Court

Dang. Spycraft?


Unfortunately it's a PBP game I'm trying to get into. I've always wanted to do a space game, and PBP is the only opportunity I have to expand beyond the games I GM at home. I don't want to GM a space game; I want to play in one. the only one on the PBP boards here at Paizo right now is d20 future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quickly, some make a space game! :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I used d20 Modern & d20 Future to run a Firefly campaign. It was pretty good. Space combat was annoying though (too many dice!) and boring for the non-pilot (everyone else became spectators). Fortunately, the 'Verse isn't big on ship vs. ship combat.

I've thought of running a PF conversion of Firefly, but 5th Edition might be more fun!

I (am probably alone in this, but I) really liked the concept of Strong Hero (Jayne), Fast Hero (Zoe, River), Tough Hero (Mal), Smart Hero (Wash, Kaylee), Dedicated Hero (Simon, Book), and Charismatic Hero (Inara). The Talent Trees weren't too complicated. And I really liked the idea of Advanced Classes (most would work as archetypes in 5Ed).


If you can't find a PBP game, it sounds like a VTT is your best bet then. I've considered several, but haven't settled on one yet. I GM face to face. I don't have the time to both GM and play. A VTT might solve that problem for me, but like any game, finding the right table and players is always a problem... good luck!

*edit* That's a bit odd. There was nothing below Nohwear's post, I took a minute to type and when I posted, bingo, a post from SmiloDan shows up ahead of mine. Oh well... back to work on my game. Prep work makes for a happy DM.


So I was thinking it over yesterday and from the (admittedly few) PnP RPGs I know it seems only 3rd edition (and it's derivatives) actually has some form of ability-tree progression.

Dark Eye, Shadowrun, 5th Edition all handle things in a single choice which if anything has an ability score or skill requisite but nothing more.
Im just not sure about 4th edition and the few d100 systems I had only a cursory glance at.


There's others which do things through a 'tree' of some sort. Gurps, FFG's Star Wars games, Green Ronin's AGE system, Exalted, Champions - that's certainly not a comprehensive selection. They don't all work the way the feat trees in 3e and it's derivatives do, but you certainly have situations where multiple prerequisites have to be acquired before the ability you really want is available.


SmiloDan wrote:
I've thought of running a PF conversion of Firefly, but 5th Edition might be more fun!

Not Firefly, but 5e in space


Dustin, the file(s) you linked look very interesting, but they're behind a contribution paywall, so I can't look as closely as I'd like. :(

There's also a fan made 5e version of D20 modern out there, but it wasn't complete last time I looked. It's not exactly a ready to play sic-fi game, but it has got the base class/advanced class design Dan was talking about. Here's a blog with a link.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

R_Chance wrote:

If you can't find a PBP game, it sounds like a VTT is your best bet then. I've considered several, but haven't settled on one yet. I GM face to face. I don't have the time to both GM and play. A VTT might solve that problem for me, but like any game, finding the right table and players is always a problem... good luck!

*edit* That's a bit odd. There was nothing below Nohwear's post, I took a minute to type and when I posted, bingo, a post from SmiloDan shows up ahead of mine. Oh well... back to work on my game. Prep work makes for a happy DM.

What does VTT mean?

EDIT:

Virtual Table Top?


Hitdice wrote:
Dustin, the file(s) you linked look very interesting, but they're behind a contribution paywall, so I can't look as closely as I'd like.

They are? That's strange. I don't have that problem.


SmiloDan wrote:


R_Chance wrote:


If you can't find a PBP game, it sounds like a VTT is your best bet then. I've considered several, but haven't settled on one yet. I GM face to face. I don't have the time to both GM and play. A VTT might solve that problem for me, but like any game, finding the right table and players is always a problem... good luck!

*edit* That's a bit odd. There was nothing below Nohwear's post, I took a minute to type and when I posted, bingo, a post from SmiloDan shows up ahead of mine. Oh well... back to work on my game. Prep work makes for a happy DM.

What does VTT mean?

EDIT:

Virtual Table Top?

Yes. Basically they are supposed to allow the equivalent to face to face gaming at a distance. With mixed success I gather. Still, it you don't have a local group, want to play or GM for a change, or want to play a different game, it seems to be a good method.


I used to run some VTT games. I had an Atomic Highway game going on VTT for a while a few years back. Alas, no more. Now that I have kids, I can't really take the time away from them more than a single session per week (which is hosted at my house so I can still be around them).

So I look to PBP games, which lets me still play, but only requires a few minutes here and there to contribute. Running a game takes a bit longer - but it's still reasonable.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ah... OK.

One of our players moved out of state, so we hang a tablet from the chandelier and Skype with him.

Alas, he is a ranger and not a swashbuckler.

;-)

The tablet is pointed straight down at the grid to make it easier for him during combat.

And we hardly ever forget he is there. :-P


Well the first problem is attempting to use crappy d20 modern system. Plainly, it sucks. The "classes" are almost entirely useless and there's a reason why a lot of people simply just start with the Advanced Classes as base classes, like Soldier for instance. The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.

Want to be a Colonial space marine? Start at 5th level (I'd suggest Strong hero 2/ fast 1/ soldier X).


Diffan wrote:
The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.

That sounds like a really good idea. I can't speak to the execution, as I didn't play more than a handful of sessions of d20 Modern, but starting off as a nobody and becoming a somebody is exactly what I'd hope for in a leveling up system.


Diffan wrote:

Well the first problem is attempting to use crappy d20 modern system. Plainly, it sucks. The "classes" are almost entirely useless and there's a reason why a lot of people simply just start with the Advanced Classes as base classes, like Soldier for instance. The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.

Want to be a Colonial space marine? Start at 5th level (I'd suggest Strong hero 2/ fast 1/ soldier X).

At least in 5E it only takes a couple of sessions to get out of those levels. The XP for them is tiny.


What system are you using?

D20 Future?

The concept is that you start as a character just starting out, with no real skills or abilities and build up until you have a career/class with those options.

I enjoy the system, but what you seem to be looking for is something else. You want someone already fully fleshed out to be a Space marine.

In which case, I suggest you try the Starship Troopers RPG (built off the D20 chassis and compatible with D20 Future if you wish).

The pocket edition is currently EXTREMELY cheap here at Paizo.

Starship Troopers Pocket edition .

That is, if you want to play the fully realized Space marine type character you are describing right from the start, rather than slowly building them up over time.


On the Pathfinder Front, I ALWAYS highly suggest people start with the Beginner Box. Not only is it an exceptional product, but it is excellent at introducing people not just to Pathfinder, but to RPGs in general.

In comparison, the 5e Starter box was abominable to anyone trying out RPGs for the first time. Better to just hop into the core rulebooks (if you can afford them, PF digital PDF is only $9.99 if I recall right as opposed to $50 per book for 5e for a $150 buy in, or if you can get an Amazon sale bargain, you could get luck at $25 these days per book.) than to try to start someone off with the Starter box for 5e.

Anyways, back on topic, Modern on it's own doesn't sound like the system that you would want running the type of character you wish to run.

If you want to stick with a D20 type system...

I already suggested the Starship trooper idea.

You could also try (if you can find it and afford it, but if you got all three of the 5e core rulebooks, you obviously can afford it) the Star Wars Saga Edition, which is sort of a simplified method in some ways, but can provide options you might like.

For a Non-D20 system, I would be tempted to suggest Dark Heresy 2e or Deathwatch, but if you found D20 Modern confusing...you should probably stay FAAAAAAR FAAAAAR away from any of the WH40K RPGs. They do have Space Marines though.


Tormsskull wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.
That sounds like a really good idea. I can't speak to the execution, as I didn't play more than a handful of sessions of d20 Modern, but starting off as a nobody and becoming a somebody is exactly what I'd hope for in a leveling up system.

Well that's the thing, is someone who's gone through basic training in the military considered 1st level? In d20 modern, apparently not. STARTING basic is practically 1st level and by the time you get out.....4th or 5th level? Maybe Strong Hero 1/ Fast Hero 3/ Soldier 1 if you're going for more of a Sniper guy and Strong Hero 2/ Tough Hero 2/ Solider 1 if you're going for more of a on the front lines + hacking away with your chain-sword sort of deal.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Diffan wrote:

The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.

Want to be a Colonial space marine? Start at 5th level (I'd suggest Strong hero 2/ fast 1/ soldier X).

At least in 5E it only takes a couple of sessions to get out of those levels. The XP for them is tiny.

True, usually fun for a group who's never played the game but if I were to start a new adventure, I'd probably hope it starts at 3rd level and go from there. I really don't need a tutorial intro, which is what 1st and 2nd level 5e feels like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Diffan wrote:
The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level.
That sounds like a really good idea. I can't speak to the execution, as I didn't play more than a handful of sessions of d20 Modern, but starting off as a nobody and becoming a somebody is exactly what I'd hope for in a leveling up system.
Well that's the thing, is someone who's gone through basic training in the military considered 1st level? In d20 modern, apparently not. STARTING basic is practically 1st level and by the time you get out.....4th or 5th level? Maybe Strong Hero 1/ Fast Hero 3/ Soldier 1 if you're going for more of a Sniper guy and Strong Hero 2/ Tough Hero 2/ Solider 1 if you're going for more of a on the front lines + hacking away with your chain-sword sort of deal.

That was my biggest issue - I've been through boot camp. I know what kind of skills a soldier should have coming out of it. So if the point of a first level character is to be someone with practically no skills - why even have a military career as an option? T just doesn't jive. For me, the issue wasn't one of a bad game system, it was one of expectations. From the introduction to the game that the GM gave, I was expecting to be able to play a soldier - I wasn't expecting to play a soldier trainee. But that's what I got.

Ah well. Maybe if I realign my expectations and try to rebuild a character that is better suited towards a novice, I'll enjoy it more.


bookrat wrote:
Ah well. Maybe if I realign my expectations and try to rebuild a character that is better suited towards a novice, I'll enjoy it more.

That or get a group that all wants to start at a higher level.

I think its important in most game systems to keep level 1 as a novice. It seems that there is a certain segment of players that want their characters to be accomplished heroes at level 1, regardless of the system used.

I think this is why a lot of the complaints about "my character concept doesn't work in this system, therefore the system is bad" falls flat. Its a difference of expectations between the player and the system.


Tormsskull wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Ah well. Maybe if I realign my expectations and try to rebuild a character that is better suited towards a novice, I'll enjoy it more.

That or get a group that all wants to start at a higher level.

I think its important in most game systems to keep level 1 as a novice. It seems that there is a certain segment of players that want their characters to be accomplished heroes at level 1, regardless of the system used.

I think this is why a lot of the complaints about "my character concept doesn't work in this system, therefore the system is bad" falls flat. Its a difference of expectations between the player and the system.

That's fair, but then it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of starting occupations - where you have a career before the start of the campaign at level 1. If level 1 is a novice, then you shouldn't have a starting occupation that requires more skills than a novice would be able to possess. Or in my case, I choose the occupation Military for my character, but was unable to build a haracter with the minimum skill set of a soldier coming out of basic training (not even advanced training, but just basic training). If my character can't have the skills of a standard soldier, then how does he have the military as an occupation?

Heck, you can even have a starting occupation of "Doctor" or one of "student" or "athlete." All at level 1 - how are each of those equivalent novices?

With the skill system and the feat walls, it would be impossible to build a standard doctor at first level - especially one from a country that actually has requirements for what a doctor should know.

It feels like the occupation list gives you an expectation of competence that you cannot acquire with the starting classes provided - a built in mismatch of expectations right from the beginning of the game. This issue, to me, can make for a bad system - and d20 modern/future seems to do that in spades.


I'm with you on that, Bookrat. I thought the D20 Modern design was too reliant on the core class/prestige class system to provide as good a modern game as Top Secret (or whichever, James Bond was good too; I guess it has to be spies, though!) or as good a generic character design as GURPS.

The 5e modern fan conversion I linked earlier is interesting because the advanced classes fit onto the basic classes like 5e subclasses, so you start getting advanced class features at level 3 instead of having to satisfy requirements, but I suppose that's not particularly relevant to the game you playing in. ;)


GM Bookrat wrote:
That's fair, but then it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of starting occupations - where you have a career before the start of the campaign at level 1.

I'll take your word for it, as I said, I'm not incredibly familiar with d20 Modern.

From a non-system specific standpoint, I would say if you can be a "Doctor" at level one, then I would imagine a level 1 doctor to be the equivalent of someone that just got their M.D. I.e., someone about to enter their residency to continue their training.

Same with a "Military" occupation - that's an incredibly broad label. It could be someone that went through a military prep school.

The point being that a modern soldier, having finished their training and as competent/certified to handle a variety of weapons, is not going to be a level 1 character.

Your expectation of what a soldier should know based on your real life experience may not match well with the game designers.


Tormsskull wrote:
GM Bookrat wrote:
That's fair, but then it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of starting occupations - where you have a career before the start of the campaign at level 1.

I'll take your word for it, as I said, I'm not incredibly familiar with d20 Modern.

From a non-system specific standpoint, I would say if you can be a "Doctor" at level one, then I would imagine a level 1 doctor to be the equivalent of someone that just got their M.D. I.e., someone about to enter their residency to continue their training.

Same with a "Military" occupation - that's an incredibly broad label. It could be someone that went through a military prep school.

The point being that a modern soldier, having finished their training and as competent/certified to handle a variety of weapons, is not going to be a level 1 character.

Your expectation of what a soldier should know based on your real life experience may not match well with the game designers.

Remember, even a doctor fresh into residency will have minimum competencies above and beyond the normal person - definitely not a novice except in their own field.

A novice Doctor is very very different than a novice student or even a novice soldier.

A novice student may be a high school graduate fresh into college, and having taught college freshmen, they're ability to critically think and analyze is somewhat minimal. They're still in the "I have to memorize, and I'll think later" phase. Teaching freshmen how to critically think and not just spew facts is challenging - so much so that when I taught senior level classes, some of my students still struggled with it. And that's at the college level. I'd imagine a high school student would be even less competent.

A novice soldier - one fresh out of basic training, is also a high school graduate, but has done fairly extensive training on physical fitness, weapon maintenance and firing of assault rifles, grenade launchers, missile launchers, hand held grenades, and bayonet training. They've also done land navigation, and have had many classes on all of the above plus military knowledge and basic military history. And one thing they have above every other career choice is massive training in team work and the ability to function nearly seem lesson as a group (basic training really knocks the individually out of people). After basic training, then you go on to advanced training for 1-18 months (depending on your career).

A novice Doctor - one fresh out of med school, has a bachelors degree and a doctorate degree with at least 8 years of schooling. In addition to their bachelors degree, they have to show competency in general chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, physics, calculus, and English (and some schools are starting to require sociology and physiology). And that's before they even get into med school! Then add on extensive knowledge of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, plus whatever their specialty is.

Are all of these really representative of a level 1 novice character? Are they equally a novice? Or are they only a novice in comparison to their own peer groups?

That's the problem with allowing you to pick an occupation that doesn't reflect what a level 1 character should be. But even then, let's say you can mesh them together to make them work - then you'd have to be able to provide those skills and feats, but with feat walls, it makes t much more difficult, because you have to specialize to be competent in a single area, leaving you incompetent in other areas that you should have competencies in.

(BTW - I'm not disagreeing with your premise. I like the idea of level 1 being a novice. 5e does this by making them all novice *adventurers* and not necessarily novice in their previous background).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps the occupation names should append "Aspirant" or "In Training" to the end for the first few levels.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Level 1 represents the beginning of the character's adventuring career. Someone could have been a country doctor for 20 or 30 years, but doesn't become a hero until that fateful day they were called upon to solve the Curious Case of the Brass Octopus.


bookrat wrote:
"historians claim this is false, but there's always a bit of truth to some rumors"

This reminds me of statements like "22% of the time, I'm right every time."

I have nothing to constructive to say, I just thought that was funny. :D

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Tormsskull wrote:
I think its important in most game systems to keep level 1 as a novice. It seems that there is a certain segment of players that want their characters to be accomplished heroes at level 1, regardless of the system used.

Anyone else chuckling at the irony here? :)


bookrat wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
GM Bookrat wrote:
That's fair, but then it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of starting occupations - where you have a career before the start of the campaign at level 1.

I'll take your word for it, as I said, I'm not incredibly familiar with d20 Modern.

From a non-system specific standpoint, I would say if you can be a "Doctor" at level one, then I would imagine a level 1 doctor to be the equivalent of someone that just got their M.D. I.e., someone about to enter their residency to continue their training.

Same with a "Military" occupation - that's an incredibly broad label. It could be someone that went through a military prep school.

The point being that a modern soldier, having finished their training and as competent/certified to handle a variety of weapons, is not going to be a level 1 character.

Your expectation of what a soldier should know based on your real life experience may not match well with the game designers.

Remember, even a doctor fresh into residency will have minimum competencies above and beyond the normal person - definitely not a novice except in their own field.

A novice Doctor is very very different than a novice student or even a novice soldier.

A novice student may be a high school graduate fresh into college, and having taught college freshmen, they're ability to critically think and analyze is somewhat minimal. They're still in the "I have to memorize, and I'll think later" phase. Teaching freshmen how to critically think and not just spew facts is challenging - so much so that when I taught senior level classes, some of my students still struggled with it. And that's at the college level. I'd imagine a high school student would be even less competent.

novice soldier - one fresh out of basic training, is also a high school graduate, but has done fairly extensive training on physical fitness, weapon maintenance and firing of assault rifles, grenade launchers, missile launchers, hand held grenades, and bayonet training. They've also done land navigation, and have had many classes on all of the above plus military knowledge and basic military history. And one thing they have above every other career choice is massive training in team work and the ability to function nearly seem lesson as a group (basic training really knocks the individually out of people). After basic training, then you go on to advanced training for 1-18 months (depending on your career).

A novice Doctor - one fresh out of med school, has a bachelors degree and a doctorate degree with at least 8 years of schooling. In addition to their bachelors degree, they have to show competency in general chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, physics, calculus, and English (and some schools are starting to require sociology and physiology). And that's before they even get into med school! Then add on extensive knowledge of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, plus whatever their specialty is.

Are all of these really representative of a level 1 novice character? Are they equally a novice? Or are they only a novice in comparison to their own peer groups?

That's the problem with allowing you to pick an occupation that doesn't reflect what a level 1 character should be. But even then, let's say you can mesh them together to make them work - then you'd have to be able to provide those skills and feats, but with feat walls, it makes t much more difficult, because you have to specialize to be competent in a single area, leaving you incompetent in other areas that you should have competencies in.

(BTW - I'm not disagreeing with your premise. I like the idea of level 1 being a novice. 5e does this by making them all novice *adventurers* and not necessarily novice in their previous background).

And yet you like 5e where ANYONE can be just as proficient as that level 10 soldier that's the veteran Rambo guy...

Simply because he doesn't have an 18 in STR or DEX and they do.

Yeah...D20 Modern may be for the weak little guys at first level, but at least by 10th level or higher they can be notably better at their niche than anyone else.

My problem with 5e is similar to what you are complaining about D20 modern, but 5e extends the problem to 1000, where D20 it's just a problem up to 11.

In fact, that's the problem with 5e, to take your own words to context, but slightly twisted differently.

Quote:

That's the problem with allowing you to pick an occupation that doesn't reflect what a level 1 character should be. But even then, let's say you can mesh background and class together to make them work - then you'd have to be able to provide those skills and feats, but greatly restricted bounded accuracy to only 4 degrees of advancement, it makes it much more difficult, because even if you specialize to be competent in a single area, leaving you incompetent in other areas that you should have competencies in you still can be matched by someone with a completely different class but who has better attributes than you...IN YOU OWN SPECIALIZATION!!!!

I actually see what you are saying, but I find it disgenious to be disgruntled about D20 Modern in this arena whilst similarly praising 5e for doing something very similar, but to an even greater extreme. 5e may not have "feat walls" per se, but it still has these feats and ability scores which many will min/max, but with the result that they'll still be less effective at their specialty than an AD&D character.

If you really want something different, go for FATE, or WEG Star Wars, which can have simplicity and other items.

If you want to stick to D20, go check out Starship troopers already and ask if you can be a space marine.

Or, realize D20 isn't going to offer what you want for a first level character.

But having a similar complaint about D20 Modern which is taken to an even greater extreme by 5e (which I gather you love) to me, seems rather like you view your favored system through rose colored glasses whilst seeing everything else through coal filtered lenses.


Sundakan wrote:
Perhaps the occupation names should append "Aspirant" or "In Training" to the end for the first few levels.

Perhaps that would be a better way to look at it. It's been a while since I actually looked at the D20 books (went to the afore mentioned Starship Troopers RPG for more futuristic stuff, or the Star Wars Saga version).

Taking the military example, to me it would be someone who had done Jr. RotC in school, or maybe a first year RotC student, or perhaps even someone who was just staring bootcamp at level 1. So, there they are, a bootcamp tenderfoot, ready to go...or perhaps someone signed up for the guard who is currently serving in their unit, but hasn't actually gone to bootcamp yet.

Or perhaps, like Star Trek (2009) where Kirk is still in training. If you notice the movie, he actually NEVER finishes his academy, his experiences in the field sort of let them ignore that he never fully graduated (and even forgive his major hacking of the Kobiyashi Maru), and advance him onto being a Starship Captain (obviously something that would NEVER occur in most of today's military).

It could be someone who is a first year cadet at the military academy, or other such thing. Obviously they have a military background at that point. In some nations, some of those cadets (perhaps second years after a summer of shadowing) will have even seen a little combat or other items.

However, they will NOT be as experienced as a fully trained soldier yet.

Of myself, having seen some newly graduated kids from bootcamp, I'm not so certain I have AS HIGH an esteem of them as bookrat does in how massive their abilities are. They are more physically fit, and have some idea how to handle themselves, but a fully trained infantry or armor will tear a unit of newly graduated bootcampers to shreds.

They still have a LOT of training to do after bootcamp to be considered fully qualified for just about...well...any job in the military.

In that light, with their higher ability scores at that point (probably in STR, DEX, and CONS), one could assume that this would give them a high enough boost over many individuals in combat, but still be considered a low level character.

IMO...obviously. To be clear, I have a HIGH DEGREE OF RESPECT for those who go into the military and go through bootcamp. I'm saying that they still need a lot of polishing in those areas to be as deadly as those who have gone through infantry school (much less ranger school or higher advanced training) or other secondary training after bootcamp.

Some may have a higher degree or level, but overall if we view rank (as we really don't have a real world comparison) to level...we could view it as

1 = New recruit
2 = Private 1st Class
3 = Private 2nd Class
4 = Private 3rd Class
5 = Corporal or Specialist
6 = Sergeant
7 = Senior Sergeant
8 = Staff Sergeant
9 = Senior Staff Sergeant
10 = Sergeant First Class
11 = Master Sergeant/First Shirt
12 = Grizzled Old Master Sergeant
13 =Sergeant Major

Or something similar to that. It's only by around 3rd level that someone who's out of boot camp will be shown in D20 Modern, and even than they still need to have a LOT more training. For those truly exceptional, maybe they have gotten to be a Corporal, but it's not going to be the rule.

Just my take on how one might build a character similar to a modern day soldier in regards to skills and abilities (and still, with the limitations of the D20 system, I think it's not even really going to be a good representation at that, but my opinion is it's a better representation than what 5e would give you...personal opinion and all).
4


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
I think its important in most game systems to keep level 1 as a novice. It seems that there is a certain segment of players that want their characters to be accomplished heroes at level 1, regardless of the system used.
Anyone else chuckling at the irony here? :)

Another odd aspect to the mentality of some gamers is that they have very strong opinions about what a "level X" character should be regardless of what system they are talking about, but don't seem to care at all if you change the word "level" to some synonym. Some people demand that "level 1" mean something specific in every game system...but if a game system uses "ranks" or "ratings" or "points" to determine character power, those same people don't seem to care. A 100-point character in Mythic Roleplaying is completely unlike a 100-point character in STARS, or a 100-point character in Moebius Adventures, or a 100-point character in GURPS. And then, of course, there are systems which don't have a word meaning "character level." No one seems to mind, since people understand that different games are, ya know, different.

But for some reason, when you use the word "level," a segment of the gaming community attaches a lot of meaning to it either from other games, or from some idea they made up about a different game.


Yeah - I've always found that odd too.

In particular, when converting adventures from one system to another, I think it's really unhelpful to constrain yourself in such a way that a 'level 12 adventure' has to emerge from the conversion being for level 12 PCs in the new system.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Feat walls (a rant) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.