So this idea occurred to me when I was ruminating about how to fit the Divine Gifts article from Kobold Quarterly 18 into Dragon Hack, and one of the ways I think the hack could really break some new ground for players is to take a page out of Steve Kenson’s book and drop (almost all) class restrictions. This was really driven home for me by the Nature domain in the divine gifts article. My basic thought was if a warrior or rogue took that domain talent, you would call them a ranger. If a mage took the talent you would call them a druid. In either case the character is receiving the exact same benefit, but the role-playing doors opened by that one talent completely open up the narrow, three-class system, once again reinforcing how Dragon Age design gets so much done with so little rules.
Rogues know talents matter
Some class talents would fit very well with a couple or all three of the Dragon Age core classes, and in each case would represent a unique take on that class. For example, why not let all classes choose the paladin talent? A warrior fits the classic image of a paladin, but wouldn’t a rogue be a great paladin for a goddess of luck, fate or wanderlust. And what about a god or goddess of the arcane, wouldn’t it make sense for their “holy warriors” to in fact be mages? It seems like you could get a lot more done this way, and allow two characters to play the same class talent in completely different ways. Imagine the differences between a warrior ranger and a rogue ranger. One could very well fit the trope of the dual-wielding badass, while the other might make a better sniper, or hit-and-run skirmisher. Both fit the ranger mold, they just arrive there from very different starting points.
The only problem with this is talents that interact directly with mana points and the Magical Training talent. While in older games like Pathfinder or DnD, a fighter or rogue could easily take one level of magic-user and all of a sudden they could cast spells, easy peasy, it doesn’t work quite the same in Dragon Age. I played around with the idea of having none of the pathfinder class talents provide any direct benefits to spell casting, so they were truly interchangeable, but I wasn’t happy with the results.
So for now, until I can come up with a better system, I want to open up the talent system a little wider, but not completely throw out class requirements. Even this small change means there will be some class talents already posted that I have to tweak. (The ranger talent already is a little too roguey, so I need to find something that’s equally attractive to warriors and rogues).
This system also opens up the possibility of something approaching the old dnd multi-classing system, and how it works is incredibly simple. If a character so chooses, they can forego one of the many specialization options at sixth level, and instead take a second class talent. They would then advance in that class talent (novice, journeyman, master) at level six, eight, and 10 just as the character with a specialization does.
My thoughts so far:
Barbarian: Rogue and Warrior.
Bard: All classes
Cleric: Mage (still reviewing this)
Druid: All classes (still reviewing this)
Fighter: Warrior
Paladin: All classes
Ranger: All classes? (Maybe just Rogue and Warrior, though)
Sorcerer: Mage
Thief: Rogue
Wizard: Mage
Also, I guess that should serve as fair notice that for this round of the Dragon Hack revision I’m cutting back to the core classes minus the monk. I posted some ideas for monks a couple of weeks back, and I’m not ready to tackle them yet because I’m still not sure where I want them to fit.
So, how about it? Is this a crazy idea, or something Dragon Hack fans would want to see?
I’m not sure where I sit on this. I think my answer is based on how close to the Pathfinder feel you are trying to get. To me, this feels more like Prestige Classes than multi-classing and PFRPG has all but eliminated the PC in favor of the Archetypes. They really only use the PC for setting specific ideas like HellKnights and the like.
What about creating alternate class talents at each level that have class restrictions? It might allow the same level of customization but keeps with the “awesome at first level” sensibility of PFRPG. That said, I think your idea definitely has wings.
Mark,
Thanks for stopping by. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “alternate class talents at each level that have class restrictions.” The reason for the redesign is that I’m firmly convinced (now) that any hack of DARPG works best when it works within the backgrounds/talents/specializations system. Where I think the first version went wrong was in trying to create its own new subsystem.
I understand your hesitance, though. I, too, am not sure if this is the best method. Your spot on that it will deviate from the source material, and it has to be evaluated how closely Dragon Hack should stick to Pathfinder. I’ve said before that I only call this a Pathfinder hack because that is the most popular and currently updated form of what we could consider “original format DnD.” If this just exists as a familiar fantasy race and class system for DARPG, maybe that shouldn’t be our chief concern. Though I do want to emulate a lot of what Pathfinder offers players.
One thing I like about this idea, is it does something that neither Dragon Age or even Pathfinder does. It offers something new to the gaming community in that regard (Paladin mages?), but I think it does so in a way that should fit pretty well inside the AGE system framework. Again, the Divine Gifts article really turned on a light for me in informing my AGE design. I love the idea of static bonuses that are useful regardless of class. Especially if they’re thematic.
I just wonder if it’s truly necessary for a Paladin to always be a heavily armored cavalier type. After all, isn’t that what players who multi-class in traditional DnD games are doing — trying to create a character outside the norm of the archetype? (If they’re not simply power-gaming)
As for Pre’s, I see where your coming from, but these would be choices at level one, which could create some really neat intersections of character concept and rules. (PS, I plan to use Pathfinder Archetypes as the basis for my new specializations).
A couple things I thought about as I was drafting the post: Imagine a Warrior who takes bard as his class talent. Then when he hits sixth level he has the choice of the bard specializations, but he’s still open to the warrior specializations from Second boxed set. What changes about his character when he’s a bard with the berserker specialization, (Warrior Skald) or champion specialization (war chanter). It’s not hard coded into the rules, but that allows the player to freeform create connections between the original talent and the new specializations. His berserker powers come from the frenzy he works himself into while chanting. Or his champion abilities are the bonuses his allies receive from his uplifting songs.
Also, think about three classes as druids. The traditional mage druid doesn’t need an explanation. But what’s a rogue druid? An assassin for the order, sworn to protect the grove? A scout for the order, who tracks down wood cutters or marauding orcs cutting down trees in the forest? Finally, imagine a warrior druid as a Beorn-like character. (from the Hobbit) A ruthless free spirit who lives on the edge of the wild because he himself is part of it.
Three totally different character concepts from the same talent. No need to create a separate Warden class or Hunter class. Just use the intersection of class and talent to make up any character you can imagine.
Phew. I’m sorry for the word barrage. Those two thoughts, though, the druid and the bard warrior, have been rolling around in my head for a couple of days. I hope that helps reveal where I’m coming from on this.
That really clears things up for me as to what you are going for. Seeing that you aren’t concerned with sticking with PFRPG sensibilities and looking for something different, it makes even more sense.
What I meant about “alternate class talents at each level that have class restrictions” was that it and alternate idea would be to create a 2 or 3 “Paladin” talents at each level (N, J, M) that require you to be of a particular base class. Now that I type it out, that may be needlessly complicated but just a thought still.
Ahhh, so warrior paladin gets A, B, C, Mage Paladin gets X, Y, Z, etc.? That’s not a bad thought, but it might be a lot to add. Again why I like how the Divine Gifts are a good fit regardless of class. It’s kinda where I was coming from with the earlier posts about boiling the classes into their very basic elements — what was most thematic about them.
And again, I’m not trying to cast out the Pathfinder backdrop. But when you look at all the advanced classes, and the archetypes and so on, I think those other games are doing the same thing but are forced to create a whole new class every time they do it, (how many classes/subclasses does 4E have now?). This might be a way to say hey, you want to play an avenger? Be a rogue with the Paladin talent. Want to be an invoker, same thing but be a Mage?
Also, don’t say that I’m not concerned with sticking to Pathfinder sensibilities, just that I want to push against the fabric a little. Where is sticking to those sensibilities helping guide the design, and where is it a restriction when you see what you can do with DARPG?
Hmmm! That’s an interesting idea. The more I think about it the more I like it! You’d have to make sure that the class talents were suitable to be taken by all of the relevant core classes. Is that what you mean by magical training/mana points being a problem? But if I read the table at the end of the article right you’re saying that the wizard talent can only be taken by mages, the barbarian by warriors and rogues etc. The only idea I could think of to control magic/mana points if you completely opened up the choices would be to say that certain class talents give you magical training, and that you gain MP and spells when you take a degree in them. So a 1st level mage taking the wizard talent gets 2d6 + 2*Magic Mana Points at Journeyman (level 3) and Master (5) degrees of wizard, rather than 1d6 + Magic at each level. The problem with this is that the character doesn’t gain MP smoothly as he levels and it dilutes the concept of the mage base class. But a warrior who takes the wizard talent instead of a specialization gains MP at level 6, 8 and 10, and will therefore have fewer MP and less spells, which is what you would expect I suppose.
Vaelorn,
Mark and I ended up hashing this out more last night on twitter, and I think I’ve come to the conclusion that if your character is going to use magic (in the normal sense, i.e. cast spells by spending mana) then you have to have the Magical Training class ability to do so. In effect, you have to be of the Mage class. I’ve tried to add magical powers to other classes through talents, or tying their magic to other abilities, and the end result always seems very clunky for the system.
This could actually end up being a benefit to the system, however, because I think it will let us open the fighter and thief talents up to the rest of the classes. Basically, if you want to cast spells you have to take the mage class. But, if your character concept is to be a fighter/wizard, or rogue who casts spells, you can still do so. You just take the mage class as base, and then add one of those talents on top.
Warriors and Rogues who “pure class,” that is take the talents for fighter or thief, respectively, will always be better at their iconic abilities than anyone else. The fighter/wizard, that is the Mage who takes the fighter talent at first level, is never going to be as good as the standard warrior in hand to hand combat. But he shouldn’t be, because he can also cast spells. By the same token, he won’t be as good at casting spells (won’t have as many options to choose from) as the Mage who chooses the Wizard or Sorcerer talents. The scale would look something like:
10 Good at fighting
Warrior (fighter talent)
Warrior (other talents)
5 Mage (fighter talent)
Mage (other talent)
Mage (Wizard talent)
10 Good at spellcasting
One neat twist to the concept, though, is an idea Mark came up with (@mrkmllr), which is to allow certain class/talent combinations the ability to cast spells with stunt points! So if you were a warrior who took a certain talent or specialization path, you might get a limited number of spells you could cast whenever you generated enough SP to meet the casting cost. Again, you could never be as good as a Mage, (and you could effectively only cast spells in battle because of the SP requirement) but you shouldn’t be equals because you can also wield a greatsword and wear plate mail.
Together, the two concepts allow you to really open up the possibilities of character concept/creation while sticking within the design parameters of the AGE system.
Yes, I think you’re right – you should be a mage to cast spells. I don’t think it’s possible to retain the balance between the warrior and mage without going to a classless system, which is obviously not what we’re about here!
SP to cast limited spells – that’s very nice! Would the MP available be, e.g. SP + Magic or something like that? It’s a little bit like the divine gift stunts I suppose, although more flexible (amazing how often we come back to that article isn’t it!). Could you extend that to the Monk “Ki” powers in one of your earlier posts? So the monk would be an unarmed warrior or rogue with a talent that allowed him to use SP to power Ki abilities, rather than a Ki pool?
My thought on the MP/SP is that it would be a 1 for 1 tradeoff. What ever your Dragon Die comes up is how much MP you have to cast with and you’d have until the end of your next turn to use them.
I, personally, wouldn’t limit it to just spells either. I’d give each of the specializations 2 or 3 stunts that only they could do that would fit within the flavor of that class. That would require a bit more work, but I think it would go a long way to capturing that Pathfinder-esque feel while working within the rules.
It’s not really my idea either, it’s just a logical extension of what Josh did with his high fantasy magic weapons. The weapons granted special stunts for possessing them…why couldn’t specializations do the same?
Specialization stunts could indeed be nice way of making specializations more interesting to take. They wouldn’t have to be combat related of course, I’m sure you could work out some roleplaying stunts for a bard (say) or exploration stunts for a rogue. However, if specializations had special stunts in addition to their “regular” powers couldn’t that make them a bit overpowered? Especially if you got say, a new stunt for each degree… But having just one of the degrees giving access to a special stunt could be nice!
Vaelorn,
I love the idea of roleplaying stunts for the bard and exploration stunts for the thief. I think that’s a perfect extension of the unique roles those classes take in a party. I also agree that not every level of a specialization should offer stunts. That’s my opinion, anyway, but the one great thing about stunts is they have a built-in system to avoid abuse or min-maxing with other powers to create too powerful combos, which is the stunt mechanic. Because you can never guarantee you’ll roll doubles it’s an automatic balance against things becoming overpowered. That said, any new stunts would have to be carefully balanced against other class powers and stunts to make sure nothing was broken.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: One of my chief goals with Dragon Hack is that player’s choices of talents always are based on character concept, not perceived imbalance of power.
I hadn’t actually considered stunts as self-limiting to that degree but I guess you’re right! One thing that would concern me about having too many stunts available to players is practicality. If you have the regular stunts, class stunts, specialization stunts, weapon talent stunts (folks on the GR forums have posted a few of these) then I can see players taking a while to choose one. I certainly noticed this in 4e with players taking a while to choose which power they wanted to use, and that was just on the heroic tier! Granted stunts can only be used if you roll doubles (still about ~44% of the time) and class/specialization stunts may well be listed on the character sheet, but it is a factor, I think.