Re: How about some alternate classes
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:50 am
I think every player in my circle of friends has, at one time or another, played the Antipaladin! My personal favorite class.
Fan Forums
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=27735
You answered your own question - you've got a great name right there. I would be proud to defeat a "Champion of Chaos" that the DM set up as a major villain. It doesn't need much to sell it. Antipaladins are NPCs, right? So your players will know the antipaladin by his frightening nicknames and not by his class anyway. NPC peasants will cross themselves before saying his name... "He is Melchiron, the champion of chaos, the demonic scourge of the Free Lands. He is the devourer of all that is good and true, the black blade of The Unclean Horsemen, and I last saw him heading for your granny's house in Elfburg." I think they'll get the picture. (Unless of course your antipaladin is a player class. I never saw the point of that - the game is supposed to be hard, and the good guys will always have a tougher path than the bad guy.)Ravenheart87 wrote:I worked a bit on the new classes in the office, and I changed my mind about the paladin and the ranger. The core book already recommends sending characters on quests to achieve special abilities. Making this necessary to advance is not only an annoying penalty for the class, but it also makes such characters steal the spotlight from the others.
Thus I'll only use the iconic abilities for paladins, rangers and antipaladins - if you want something else, talk to your Judge. Antipaladin? Yes, I think the latter is different enough to deserve a class of it's own. My only problem is that I don't like the "antipaladin" name. How should I call a champion of chaos? Blackguard? Reaver? If you have a better idea, please share it with me.
I also have some notes for druids, psionic abilites, psionic combat, but it's too early to talk about them.
I think this is a great idea! And one I will gladly nick and incorporate into my DCC game!Ravenheart87 wrote:Enter militant orders! Joining one is not an easy task, and while you get bonuses, they have their own restrictions too. It's easier to write one order up, doesn't results in such unnecessary complexity like adding a new class, the Warrior class remains "The Warrior", characters can enter on various levels to an order and this solution goes hand in hand with DCC's "quest for it" mentality.
This is the implication of pages 46-47, isn't it? Scads of crunch is not needed -- the solution is always flavor...Flexi wrote:I think this is a great idea! And one I will gladly nick and incorporate into my DCC game!Ravenheart87 wrote:Enter militant orders! Joining one is not an easy task, and while you get bonuses, they have their own restrictions too. It's easier to write one order up, doesn't results in such unnecessary complexity like adding a new class, the Warrior class remains "The Warrior", characters can enter on various levels to an order and this solution goes hand in hand with DCC's "quest for it" mentality.
I must admit I have always been a fan of lots of choice for character classes. With that though, as well as other people on this thread, I have questioned the need for rangers when we have fighters, assassins when we have thieves, illusionists as well as magic users etc.
Yes, I think it's pretty clear that pages 46-47 are the sources for inspiration. For some orders, I'm going to add some crunch in my campaign, because I'd like to make their members a bit different from each other - but not as much as I would have if I created new classes. For others, it's just flavour.GnomeBoy wrote:This is the implication of pages 46-47, isn't it? Scads of crunch is not needed -- the solution is always flavor...
Code: Select all
Level Attack (deed die) Crit Die/Table Pathfinder Bonus Action Die Reflex Fortitude Will Special
1 +d3 1d10/III +1 1d20 +1 +1 +1 First favored enemy
2 +d4 1d12/III +2 1d20 +1 +1 +1
3 +d5 1d14/III +3 1d20 +2 +1 +1
4 +d6 1d16/IV +4 1d20 +2 +2 +2 Second favored enemy
5 +d7 1d20/IV +5 1d20+1d14 +3 +2 +2
6 +d8 1d24/V +6 1d20+1d16 +4 +2 +2
7 +d10+1 1d30/V +7 1d20+1d20 +4 +3 +3 Third favored enemy
8 +d10+2 1d30/V +8 1d20+1d20 +5 +3 +3
9 +d10+3 2d20/V +9 1d20+1d20 +5 +3 +3
10 +d10+4 2d20/V +10 1d20+1d20+1d14 +6 +4 +4
Titles
Level
1 Hunter
2 Forester
3 Trail-Blazer
4 Scout
5 Avenger
I agree that a Ranger shouldn't be as good at the sneaky stuff in a dungeon or urban setting as he would be in a wilderness environment. That should be mentioned in the write-up somewhere.bholmes4 wrote:My biggest issue is that they are nearly as good in a dungeon setting as the wilderness.
I was kind of wanting a dungeon-delving aberrant/undead hunter type for the lawful ranger. Maybe I could have the pathfinder bonus change based on level? I was wanting to keep the rules as toned down as I could though. Less checking of the book the better imo.finarvyn wrote:I agree that a Ranger shouldn't be as good at the sneaky stuff in a dungeon or urban setting as he would be in a wilderness environment. That should be mentioned in the write-up somewhere.bholmes4 wrote:My biggest issue is that they are nearly as good in a dungeon setting as the wilderness.
File off the serial number and you have the Barbarian! Great class.Vanguard wrote:Alternate Classes you say? How about this Orc class I just made? Take a look!