Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

 

Im of both camps -- I personally hate classes and don't use them for my characters -- like ghost-angel I too avoid class & level based games; I find them unnecesarily restrictive and think they engender narrowly envisioned games.

 

HOWEVER, I also realize that they are a very useful construct for less...shall we say "imaginative" players. They have their benefit in other words.

 

Thats why I like HERO System Package Deals so much -- they give the best of both worlds. They provide a structure to those that need one, a starting point for those that are more imaginative but want a guideline as to what is appropriate to a campaign, and are easily configured or ignored outright by players that want to go off in their own direction.

[i3ullseye]

Re: Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

 

I appreicate classes, and hate levels. thats where the problem lies, not within the class structure. Classes can be easily modified. You can add or remove and not worry too much.

 

The problem is the assumption that not everyone of a given class gets all their abilities right away, and that as levels are gained, they will progress in mroe or less the same way along that path. It is very arbitrary and false. In a class syustem, a Wizard has little chance of also meing a talented martial artist until you multi-class him. But who is to say his father did not teach him martial arts since he was a child?

 

In a point based system we avoid all this. We can indeed have a spell caster with a strong hand to hand background. But then we run into the other side of the coin. Taking 5 good combat maneuvers, and a magic pool lone, the character is then seen as done.

 

What about those knowledge skills that logically woudl go along with such training? What about that Breakfall or weapon element that is normally part and parcel with that training? What about that magic skill to utilize that spell pool? What about any disadvantages for the choice of art or magic?

 

Sure, those of us who have been at this for years LIKE to balance our characters and make them as detailed as possible. We like balancing those disads ans support skills to make a living and breathing character. But even with all this, does it fit in with the campaign world? Is it possible for soemone to learn this specific martial art form their father? What are the professional skill requirements or social limitations of this chosen school of magic?

 

The packages are a great tool to cover this, and I think the msot brilliant way a system can handle all these questiosn and still remain both flexible and balanced. I nearly wept the first time I read Fantasy hero... the idea of a racial package and it's cultural package being seperate was a true stroke of genius. Now you CAN have that Human who was raised by elves, and everything makes perfect sense.

 

But by adhering to these packages, all those who come form the land of elves will harbor enmity toward the enemies of their race, which is as it should be. Without that package in place, you have to work extra hard to make sure that every character fits in with the campaign paradigm... and by the time you do this you are still enforcing classes/packages anyway.

 

But all this makes sense. It is the level based component that is really the problem. Some people might just step into their warrior role, and through natural talent and prowess, why wouldn;t they be able to stand next to someone who has done this 20 years Sometimes they might be considerably better than the aged veteran. Level based systems make this all but impossible, but HERO makes it work well.

 

Now that aged old coot coudl have a vast array of tactics and support skills that the young upstart has yet to learn, even if his sword arm is stronger and faster. And they are both human, and will survive roughly the same amount of actual physical damage... last I heard, that really shouldn't increase tenfold with age.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

 

Put me on the list of those who hate class and level systems. Its funny though that one of my favorite RPG's from back in the day (Rolemaster) was heavily reliant on both, but the way in which it handled them made it far more flexible than most games that rely on such mechanics.

 

Even though I don't like class systems very much, I actually quite like Hero system Package Deals. They go a long way toward giving a character focus...a profession of sorts, without restricting them in any way (you can still purchase any skill or characteristic you want). So if you want a Fighter, you take the basic Warrior package deal, but this does not in any way restrict the character from buying magic, if the player so desires.

 

One of the reasons I don't like class systems very much is because it tends to make characters of the same class look exactly alike. Cookie-cutter characters don't appeal to me at all, and thats exactly what DnD encouraged, which is why I stopped playing it back in the late 80's.

 

Levels are even worse...I hate the fact that you can't start out with a character thats even halfway competent in one or two skills in most level based systems. Of all the level based games that I've ever played, only Rolemaster was enjoyable. You could make a competent 1st level character in that system (of course, by the time the character is 10th level, he'll be hyper-competent, but thats not my issue with level based systems) unlike in all the others.

 

I also find level based systems to be fairly unrealistic. You experience life then suddenly you get better at everything. Thats just plain wrong. You should only get better at the things you are continually experiencing or actively training. Point-based systems are much better in this aspect...you put points into the skills and abilities you've recently used, or place them into the skills you are specifically training to get better...and those are the only ones that advance. Rolemaster also followed this particular trend because when one gained a level of experience, you recieved skill points that you were able to distribute amongst your skills...they don't all automatically get better. (Palladium system is guilty of this. All skills gain +X% per level of exp gained)

 

As far as I'm concerned, point based/classless systems are the superior RPG's out there. Hero, GURPS, BESM etc tend to better simulate fiction than DnD and Palladium/RIFTS

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

 

And that's why I opted to flip in the first place, because I had plenty of PCs who were improving in areas that they shouldn't, by any stretch, be getting better at. I have no problem with the Rogue learning lots of skills; that's what they do. But if they want to get better at fighting, they're stuck. They want to start slinging magic across the field? So solly! No ticky, no laundry! There's an extent to which that makes sense; you can only do what you've trained (i.e., taken a level in) to do. I'm down with that.

 

i3ulleye makes a phenomenal point though - and what if my Father was a Martial Artist, and I chose to be a Cleric? Do you think he let me grow up without basic combat training? Is that properly reflected by my BAB? Even if I'm nowhere near as good as he is, maybe I retained basic defense skills, or remember how to pivot and add some oomph to my swings. There's no way to represent that in d20 without buying:

 

- A level in... Monk? Wait, what? Why the... no, no that won't work. Monk doesn't come close to representing my youth, which was nominally spent in the Church.

 

- I'll burn a feat! But... I only get 8 or so in my career; I can't justify the expenditure for the sake of improved characterization, that doesn't begin to make sense. Danggit.

 

- I'll take a level in Fighter! Yes! Now I have a free feat, all the armors I could ever want, and an extra Base Attack Bonus! Huzzah! But... well, it's great, from a powergame perspective, but doesn't really come close to "martial arts training," does it? Curses. That's out.

 

- I'll just adjust my class abilities to reflect... no, wait, that's utterly illegal. Curses!

 

And about the seventh time you've gone around this loop, you realize that at the outset, you need to make sacrifices, and that's where the system starts to really break down. It's also why I don't understand why more people won't simply acknowledge that d20 is an entry level system, and it isn't built to represent all genres. Quite the opposite.

[i3ullseye]

Re: Fixin' what's broken - switching from d20 to HERO

 

Again, the problem exists because the games balance factor is a linear level progression. And one level of Wizard does NOT equal one level of Warrior, so even this gets severely skewed. With Feats you can indeed do a basic background thing. With multi-classing you get more, but it limits you to taking complete classes, and that doesn't always make sense.

 

Why can you not learn a simple cantrip in a magic heavy world? Wouldn't most rogues love a simple light? Or to hide and summon their lockpick? Of course they would. And in a high magic campaign, it is silly to think they could never learn a few of these tricks.

 

Even if magic IS hard to learn, what about that warrior who wants to learn how to pick a lock? This is purely physical and mental, no magic involved. But in order to do it they need a whole level of Rogue? Thats insane.

 

But again, that is not to say that classes have no place. Without them, many characters would look the same. They would end up munchkins with the most perful weapon and armor, just the most beneficial spells, find traps and pick locks, etc... so why need a group then? You also lose a lot of the secondary and support skills that GOOD games rely on.

 

Classes make characters better suited to their. They guide them toard picking logical skills and abilities for what they do, and limit them form doing too much else. They prevent them form making themselves hard to play by over-specializing.

 

Come on. We have all played the ultimate weapon master before... only to sit idle while the rest of the group finds the secret doors, finds the traps, identifies the magic items, carrouses in the pub, only waiting for them to point us at the big bad guy we needed to hack on. And when they bad guy has magic, or psionics, or needed other than up front combat, we were hosed.

 

So, classes (or in HERO profession packages) are a great guide post to ensure your warrior can do more than just swing that axe. Maybe knowing how to fix or make an axe also. Also gaining some more general combat prowess, but also some knowledge of other warriors, or the history of his local armies engagements. These packages are indeed classes... and they help immensley.

 

Sure, the great thing about HERO is that everything is balanced on the point scale. So the level of wizard versus level of warrior issue never arises. Now 10 points is 10 points. It might get that warrior farther at first, or the Wizard may pick a very useful spell. But both are 10 point purchases, and fairly balanced within the game. But in order to become a wizard in the first place, you have to meet the requirements (ie, pick up the class) and thats where the profession packages come into play.

 

We all know the flexibility HERO gives, and if we didn't think it superior to almost anything else we likely wouldn't be here. But there are many other good games out there, and many other good ideas within them. Some of the worst games have great ideas (I am looking at YOU Shadowrun and World Of Darkness). And I personally think that classes ranks up there as one of the most useful tools in all of gaming. It allows for guidance in character building, it acts as a restraint when the GM wants it to be one, it allows for adventure planning by having generalized reference to each adventurer.

 

I can't stress enough how much having classes/professions helps to make balancing the threats in game more enjoyable. If a FH game you might know you have 3 warrior types, a cleric and 2 bards. That will require a differrent challenge from a game with 4 wizards and 2 rogues. You don't always have easy labels like that in Champions games.

 

In supers, you can call one a blaster, and one an egoist, and one a brick, etc... but there is no profession/class package to ensure they cover the basic skills expected of that role. But why do we label these characters anyway? Calling one a blaster is indeed giving them a 'Class' label, and we do it for design purposes even when the class system itself doesn't actually exists.

 

We just have to remember to 'USE' classes, and not let classes use us.