OutsiderOpinion
2013-04-01, 11:54 PM
Alright guys, so I've been working on building a D20 system from scratch on and off over the last couple of years. I call it "Shadows and Dust," after a quote from "Gladiator." At any rate, I've been running a campaign on this engine for awhile now, and it's been going well, but not quite what I had hoped for the system.
I am now working on Shadows and Dust 2.0, and I've got some major changes in mind. What do you guys think about a system that separates class from fighting style. For example, a player could choose to play a Rogue. That means high skill-points, but less ability in combat. The player can then choose whatever type of combat he wants this particular character to have, which basically determines what class-abilities they get as relates to combat only. So this hypothetical rogue could choose Dirty Fighting (typical roguish fighting), Marksmanship (for an archer-centric character, such as Haley) or Pure Fighting (which is basically as a Fighter). However, because this character has effectively chosen to specialize in skills rather than combat, whichever style they choose, they will get LESS of it than, say, a Soldier class who chose the same style. Thus, it becomes easy to imagine a common street thug (Rogue class, with the Pure Fighting tree), Assassin's (Soldier class or similar with the Dirty Fighting tree) and any number of other things.
The trade off, waving aside, for the moment, increased complexity, would be that there would BE a bigger trade off. Sneak attack or no, Rogue classes become irrevocably weaker in combat than their Fighter counterparts, who could by choosing the same style, have MORE of the same thing. It is true to life that some types would focus more on out-of-combat skills, but would this not diminish the experience for those less able to contribute to battle?
I am now working on Shadows and Dust 2.0, and I've got some major changes in mind. What do you guys think about a system that separates class from fighting style. For example, a player could choose to play a Rogue. That means high skill-points, but less ability in combat. The player can then choose whatever type of combat he wants this particular character to have, which basically determines what class-abilities they get as relates to combat only. So this hypothetical rogue could choose Dirty Fighting (typical roguish fighting), Marksmanship (for an archer-centric character, such as Haley) or Pure Fighting (which is basically as a Fighter). However, because this character has effectively chosen to specialize in skills rather than combat, whichever style they choose, they will get LESS of it than, say, a Soldier class who chose the same style. Thus, it becomes easy to imagine a common street thug (Rogue class, with the Pure Fighting tree), Assassin's (Soldier class or similar with the Dirty Fighting tree) and any number of other things.
The trade off, waving aside, for the moment, increased complexity, would be that there would BE a bigger trade off. Sneak attack or no, Rogue classes become irrevocably weaker in combat than their Fighter counterparts, who could by choosing the same style, have MORE of the same thing. It is true to life that some types would focus more on out-of-combat skills, but would this not diminish the experience for those less able to contribute to battle?