Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

 
Characters - classes, stats, experience?

#1
So!

Everyone has a character, at least one, that we've already agreed. But what are our characters going to be like? Here's a few things we need to figure out (by no means all the things we need to figure out in regards to this) and some example proposals I've made for them.

1. Character stats - should the characters have stats or skill scores or something of the sort? For instance, something like strength, endurance, and charisma, to be applied in different situations where mere roleplaying won't do and you need a number of some sort. Will the have the same HP system as the Pokémon?

2. Character class - should we have different classes? For example, we could do something like someone already suggested, and have a trainer (3 pokémon on hand, can catch pokémon), ranger (can't catch Pokémon, only one companion, 100% chance of capturing assisting Pokémon until the end of the roleplaying event/battle), scientist (can catch Pokémon, can only bring one into dungeons, items double effective), type specialty trainer (can catch any Pokémon but only use those of his/her chosen type, 1,5 times Pokémon exp gain), and so on. Alternatively, take the trainer classes from the games? Like, y'know, Ace Trainer, Psychic, Bug Catcher, etc, and have those apply a bonus to specific types or moves for your Pokémon.

3. Character levels - will the characters themselves have levels? How do they gain experience? Do they gain experience?

4. Character skills - will the characters have specific skills they have to use, separate from those of their Pokémon? Will they have skill points? Etc.

So, what do people think about all this?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#2
...Is it weird that I kinda sorta want to have a character sheet? Why, no, I have not ever statted my Pokémon characters. We could do what we did in the ASBN and allow players to keep threads dedicated to their character for organization, but in any case, I have to say yes to the first point. But then again, I'm weird, so. But still, it'd be interesting to have stats that further customize your characters while still being very specific. As in, you have a clear image of what your character can do because you keep track of what their specific stats are -- maybe even skills. As a result, you might end up with a really awesome fighter character who sucks at persuasion because you plotted your character out that way at the beginning (which would make certain dungeons pretty hilarious probably), or you might have a really good intelligence/wisdom character who quite frankly sucks at battling but is forced to figure out how to survive a dungeon reliant on them. There's a lot of strategy involved with actually having stats, not to mention it defines who your character is and serves as a reminder of what limitation you have when you go to play them. In short, it could definitely make the game more interesting, although I can already see how someone might protest that concept (what with most internet RPGs being freeform and all).

...That and I have never adapted character sheets for Pokémon. Most certainly never anything that has to do with Exalted or World of Darkness. *shoves Anathema and Vault of Darkness under the table*

*shoves the Changeling character sheet she did for Bill under there too*

As for 2, I'm for it. Not only because hell yes developing classes but also because, again, shiny, shiny strategy. Of course, by doing this, we'd also have to allow folks to dump characters (or at least get alts within reason) to allow them to explore different options for classes, if not allow them to change classes with a certain fee. (Maybe via tokens bought on the board-wide shop?) Either way, it sounds like a pretty shiny idea because it not only encourages players to customize their characters further, but in doing so, they end up developing them a bit more... so you don't have that vague trainer/researcher/league official mess that you might find in some Sue profiles, for example. It'd be interesting to see what players would do with the limitations as well -- or how they incorporate them into their characters' backstories or personalities (to explain why they stick to those limitations or how they feel about them).

3 is also an interesting thought, although I'm not sure how we'd factor that in. Probably once we develop the exact system the dungeons run on, we'd be able to figure that part out.

Either way...

4 gets a "this sounds incredibly awesome" from me. Probably because of my strange fondness for character sheets, but it'd be rather hilarious if we somehow managed to get a dice system going. And I say "hilarious" not just because yay playing a board-based tabletop correctly but also because oh the possibilities of epic failures.

That and, again, pretty shiny in terms of strategy. I mean, sure, you'd still have freedom in terms of roleplaying (just for those of you who aren't familiar with tabletop RPing), but, for example, it'd be interesting to be able to have a skill for investigation whenever you actually seriously want to look around, if only because that would help the DM figure out what exactly you'd find. In short, even if we have just a few skills, it'd really, really help the DM, I'd imagine. That's what skills are used for in tabletop RPing, after all, so why not?

As you can tell, I'm probably inordinately excited about character sheets.
Holmes: Punch me in the face.
Watson: Punch you?
Holmes: Yes! Punch me! In the face! Didn't you hear me?
Watson: I always hear "punch me in the face" when you're speaking, but it's usually subtext.
- Sherlock, "The Scandal in Belgravia"

The girl responsible for this atrocity to mankind. And this one. And these
Reply

#3
I would probably prefer that the differences between people do not differ too much (just seems stuff like rangers, scientists, etc may be too big and so some classes outclass others, etc). Besides that I do like the idea of classes.

How would one implement that with the calc, if they actually partake in battles? I *guess* I could always make .txt files for every character, although note that system doesn't use base stats in the first place much. I guess that in part has to do with 3; do they go as a similar way with pokemon, or separate, or not at all? I would personally go towards separate but have them get rewards separate (more freedom in using Pokemon or somesuch... or could you say points is a sort of exp system?) Newer alts have to start from scratch, and maybe say buying stuff for a secondary character costs extra so it's not so easy to manage.


But I hardly know a thing about tabletop RPing in the first place, tbh, so I'll let you guys figure it out mostly if we're using aspect from there. =p
[Image: suisdbsf.png]
By TwilightBlade of PC. =D
Reply

#4
I like the idea of classes a LOT (coming back to that later yes sir), as well as stats and skills. I think that levelling is less important for characters, tho.

The stats and skills are what's going to be important - if a characters earns a stats increase then it's because time and effort was put into that stat! This way I think you see a character get stronger in certain areas based on gameplay rather than just getting exp per encounter. I feel like that would be more nuanced.

For skills, I also have a thought (stolen from FTL if I'll be honest) about skills. Rather than making skills another big mess with their own stat points that need micromanaging, let's simplify.

In FTL, your spaceship has all the usual stuff, but can also be outfitted with augmentations. There's three slots for possible augmentations, and they effect how your ship runs and what you can do to a large extent. There's passive effects like automatic resistance to certain weapons or active effects like increasing your own weapon recharge speed!

I feel like something similar to this (augmentations = skills) would be nice for a game like this. More slots perhaps, but a hard limit on the amount of special skills you can have. I think it would bring some balance, so that we're not going to see problems with characters absorbing up piles of skills and getting really deadly to the point that GMs have to put in starting conditions throttling the use of skills anyway.

I'm not really sure if people will like this idea or not but I figure it's worth putting out there. If it's not going to work with the system being devised that's completely okay, because as I said before I'm not hugely into tabletop gaming!

I will stick by the stats increase > exp though. EXP and levelling is fine for Pokemon, because the battle system is designed around it. But our characters should be rewarded for what they utilise, not just generically across the board.

Finally, classes! Oh man, classes could be so great. Marcin's right in that we don't need a hundred different iterations - too complicated and we'll end up with a pile of ignored class types or the system will be unbalanced.

I think classes will affect three main things:

- Battle style (Ranger versus Trainer versus Team Rocket obv.)
- Skills (Perhaps each class gets a unique skill for their class - like Rangers being able to talk over wild Pokemon for temporary aid!)
- Stats. (This one should only be in effect at the beginning, or in a 'double every point earned in this stat' type deal. The +5 stat point is still a good idea though.)


Okay! That's everything I was thinking about this so yeah. Gonna stop there for now and get feedback. Meow
Catfish
Reply

#5
(4th Oct 2012, 04:32 AM)Deenaa Wrote: I will stick by the stats increase > exp though. EXP and levelling is fine for Pokemon, because the battle system is designed around it. But our characters should be rewarded for what they utilise, not just generically across the board.

Just to note, the Storyteller in WoD and some DMs in D&D will make sure that the character earns the points he puts his skills into. That is to say, if the character hasn't exercised his charisma at all in the chronicle, he's not going to be able to spend his experience on anything Social. In D&D it can be handwaved a bit, but characters are still expected to seek out mentors and suchlike if they want to take a level in a Prestige Class or learn some cross-class skills.

Speaking of (n)WoD, I actually think that particular system, with an experience pool and different costs for skills/attributes/merits is incredibly versatile and effective. How it works is that Storytellers award experience at the end of every chapter, and goes into an experience pool which does not in any way contribute towards levelling in a traditional sense. Instead, you can spend the experience on things like improving your charm or intelligence or brawn, or to become more proficient in a variety of skills (although having no points in a skill doesn't mean you're completely ignorant of it, just that you're only as good as any normal person would be). Since experience is generally awarded depending on roleplaying and involvement, though, and STs don't allow completely arbitrary experience expenditure, the system works fairly well from an in-character perspective. For example, my character took part in an investigation regarding ghostly happenings around a school, and after talking her way around the place, uncovered a lot of spooky old lore. After completing the task, she gained some experience, which I chose to spend in the Occult skill. The Investigation skill would also have been applicable, as would her Social or Mental attributes.

One additional thing that the WoD has are merits, which can range from special skills to actual physical possessions. Things like a devoted retainer or a personal library, expendable income or a nice house can also be bought with experience. This can mean that the character, in completing quests, has earned enough favor or money to afford a house. It can also be an excuse for a Storyteller to come up with a plot hook or adventure; the player states that they want to find a house or their old acquaintance or a mystical book, and experience from the adventure goes towards paying for it. Not enough experience? That just means that there are possibly other conditions to be fulfilled; maybe even after you have the house, half of it is haunted, or the retainer has his own personal issues you have to help him deal with, or the book is in a language you can't decipher.

I don't know how well this would work with the system, but for those of you unfamiliar with this particular tabletop game, it might be some food for thought.
Reply

#6
I think everyone's mentioned what I've been thinking about all of this, but my thoughts on the matter are a bit of a mixture of ideas. So here we go:

I think Marcin's right that classes shouldn't make battles different, due to calc issues and all of that sort of thing. If it's something that wouldn't affect the calc then that's probably fine, but that mostly boils down to what kinds of pokémon and how many of them different classes can have. We could also do something like "fire moves always get STAB if you're a fire-breather" or things of that nature, but we can figure that one out in a bit.

Mostly what I think classes should focus on is skills. All the adventuring and dungeon crawling that trainers do translates well into a D&D-style skill system. Basically, a performer might have a good acrobatics skill, gentlemen could be very diplomatic, rich kids might make more money per battle, and things of that nature. It would alter how you approach situations and could add a lot of flavor to games. Do you sneak around rival trainers when your pokémon are wounded, or do you try to sweet-talk them into helping you heal your team? Can you field dress a wound? Can you whip up an antidote from natural ingredients? That kind of stuff is awesome. So I propose we at the very least get a list of stats going, whether we implement classes or not.

I'm going to take the first step and condense swimming, jumping, climbing, and all of those similar skills into athleticism. Other skills to consider are healing, charisma (bluffing and diplomacy rolled into one), sneaking, and survival, just to name the big ones.

Final thought: having your pokémon help you overcome obstacles adds modifiers to your skills. For instance, using a water pokémon to get across a river would give you a bonus to your athleticism check.
Δ
Reply

#7
I think the only thing I'm really not fussed on is character levelling. The problem I see is that we could end up with power players levelling up intensely and gaining ridiculous stats until they outclass everyone else (especially those not as active).

I also don't think this is like a DnD game, where you typically have a plotline and an end goal. We'll run plots sometimes, certainly, but there's no key overall point that we're reaching to (and therefore getting stronger for). In a more static environment like this, doesn't levelling seems a bit redundant?

We sort of run into the same problem with stats now that I think about it. If someone has an 100 in Athletics for example, then any athletic challenges just become redundant to them. Is there a way to handle this? Do we cap the stats at a point where failure is still an option?

Because I don't have a lot of experience with this sort of thing, I'm completely aware there may be solutions to this that I'm just not aware of. Buuut the questions are still worth asking!


Onto classes, I agree that the characters and the Pokemon battles should be largely kept separate. When I was pointing out that class would affect battle style, I think I was going for more along the lines of 'special actions' - like a Ranger stopping a fight to convince a wild Pokemon to join them (thus hitting on their Charisma skill), or something like that.

I still think that for now, if classes are a thing that is happening, we should be sticking to a small number of them with clearly different skills/special bonuses. It seems a bit silly to have every single trainer type a class option at this point.

Finally, skills. Are we going to have a hard limit (keeping them simple and general), or is there going to be a giant pile of them too? I sort of explained my problem with huge piles of skills for every little thing above, but again I'm not that experienced with this stuff, so I could definitely have it wrong.
Catfish
Reply

#8
I was personally thinking no more than ten skills, and Anni was talking to me about just having some core stats (such as strength, dexterity, etc.) that all checks are ultimately based off of. I think the second option is more elegant, and I'm going to comment on what I think Anni meant even though she hasn't put forward the idea yet. She may come in with a different approach to this, but here's how I see it.

Basically, trainers would have a very small selection of stats, much like pokémon do in the games. I'm going to stick with the D&D standard of strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma for this example. You'd apply your strength stat to things like breaking through barriers, lifting heavy objects, and things of that nature. Dexterity would be more for jumping, getting through confined spaces, or tasks that require fine motor skills. Charisma would be a catch-all interaction stat: it would allow you to be more influential with other people and maybe even get a complicated message across to pokémon if you're really good. Wisdom could be applied to survival skills that require natural instincts, such as foraging for food, building a shelter, and healing yourself or your pokémon. Intelligence is a little more complicated, but in D&D it's used for things requiring a bit more knowledge such as identifying plants or disabling a trap.
Δ
Reply

#9
Yeah, I think we should stick to a relatively small number of stats and a relatively free-form regulations on utilizing and interpreting them. What I was thinking about was basically something like this:

Strength -> breaking or smashing things, lifting and pushing, punching, jumping, possibly climbing, swimming, and other athletic sort of things
Endurance -> defensive stat: resisting damage/diseases/poison, enduring prolonged physical strain (like starvation or thirst or just running for a really long time), carrying things
Charisma -> interactions: convincing NPC Pokémon/people of something, getting Pokémon to follow you, being a convincing liar, actually communicating with Pokémon
Perception -> ability to notice detail in your surroundings, ability to recognize things (such as Pokémon or plants), keenness of senses, possibly also healing (because you're better at telling what's wrong)
Speed -> the pace you do things at: where your turn is in the battle, how fast you can swim/run/walk, how agile you are

I don't want to go completely D&D with the stats because I feel like a forum RP needs to be a little more freeform with stats than a tabletop one, plus I'd like us to have something more of our own. I also don't want to go completely freeform and have people describe their ability in each skill (though, to some degree that should be allowed, for instance someone who has an average strength stat but has been swimming their entire life should still be pretty good at swimming and just average at all other actions attributed to strength, imo), because I think that would end badly.

How I'd treat stats in character creation would be to give everyone, say, 30 or 25 points for everyone to distribute in the stats as they please. 5 would be the ability level of a pretty average person with no special training. This way, everyone's characters are going to be approximately equal in their potential and their skills, and there won't be any "good at anything" or "I just pulled this skill out of my butt" type characters in the game. You still have pretty good control over what your character is like, though - you can go for an even distribution, or a completely crazy Speed with almost no points in the other stats, or something like that.

It would then, to some degree, be up to the DM how the stats are interpreted in each case. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to roll a die every time a character attempts something - although obviously the DM could do that, if they want - but it would more be treated as a way for the DM to tell how good a character is at something. For example, Strength 20 means they're somewhere on par with olympic weight lifters, and can definitely push aside some meager boulder. A Speed of 1 would mean the character is about as fast as an arthritic 65-year-old (could be worse!). So, it would be a nice scale of reference for the DM, and a nice source of strategy for the player.

Thoughts?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#10
I like those stats, An-Chan. :]

I think I like the idea of trainer classes and that their main difference would be in stats. My main interest in what trainer classes there would be. I think there has to be a 'villain' class, i.e. Team Rocket. (Question is would be it an existing canonical one or one created specifically for this region?) I think Ranger is probably needed... as well as Scientist. And obviously, Trainer.

In addition to stats, each class can have a particular 'affinity' for certain types of pokemon, affecting how quickly they bond with that type (or those types). Team Rocket would be the most obvious example, and Ranger could be ground/grass types? Just a suggestion.

Also, there could be an additional stat - how well each person is at battling (Battle stat?). Perhaps that could fit into other stats?

EDIT: Oh! And I think it should be possible to change class through the adventure. Like, starting as Trainer but joining Team Rocket if you meet a Rocket member who invites you to join.
Reply

#11
paaaaathos :D

I like the general direction for the few-ish vaguely D&D stats, yeah. I wonder, though, if something like TR should be a class as opposed to an "alignment" or some other sort of affiliation? After all, I could be TR's battling muscle or someone devising crazy new poisons and potions for them, and those would still fit pretty neatly into Trainer and Scientist.

Definitely like the idea of changing classes, albeit with some minor sort of restriction, maybe. That or maybe being able to have a secondary class that you're possibly slightly less proficient in, a la a D&D-style "Ranger-Sorcerer" or something?
Altered Origin
fanart, fanfics, fan rambles and assorted random crap

The Phoenixdex
so many fakemans aaaaaaa halp
Reply

#12
Just posting this here then.

(7th Oct 2012, 11:51 PM)pathos Wrote: But that's exactly it, that no one in the rp can see each other and their stats, haha. I just think writing the character's personality/history/appearance/etc. with what they're good and bad at is... where the 'stats' go. 9_9

But then that's a relative scale rather than an absolute one, which is not as useful to a DM who actually has to decide whether a "brawny, muscly, likes to fight" is stronger than a retired prizefighter who still gets in practice from time to time. If you just don't want characters in-game to see each others' stats, then you didn't have to worry in the first place; absolutely no one was suggesting that at any time.

(8th Oct 2012, 05:35 AM)Phoenixsong Wrote: People can simply describe their characters as having greater physical strength and poor perception skills, and if need be we can remind people to mention specific skills/areas in their descriptions when they sign up with a new character; there's nothing wrong with being average in all/almost all areas if that's how the player chooses to write it up, and if people start describing themselves as ungodly strong and ungodly charismatic and ungodly perceptive and blah blah blah then just call them out for godmodding or whatever the way you would in any other more freeform RP.

Again, if nothing else it's convenient for the DM. Numbers also make it easier to balance characters or spot imbalances, and a purely description-based stat ceiling gives people a lot of wiggle-room: while I'm not supposing anyone here would ever exploit a vague description to save their character from detriment, the fact is that it can make for some frustrating moments.

I believe the system will most probably be diceless, but there was this one thing in Paranoia I really admired: each character had three slots for skills which you would declare on spur of the moment. For example, you could be locked in a phonebooth along Generic Street filling with poisonous gas, and then spontaneously declare that your character has the skill of "Picking open the lock of the phonebooth along Generic Street". You'd get a huge bonus on the check, and from then on that skill slot is locked to it. It's amazing because it allows for characters to develop in unique ways the player probably never anticipated; whenever we used a skill like that we'd try to rationalize it for our characters after the adventure, adding more backstory as we describe how he used to be a maintenance guy who'd consistently get drunk and fall asleep in that phonebooth, only to find himself locked in when he awoke. It's actually fairly balanced, because the skill has to be incredibly specific: you can't just give your character the skill to unlock phonebooths: it has to be that particular one. Most of the time it's a fun get-out-of-jail-free card, after which your character lives with that life experience retroactively for the rest of his life (which unfortunately in Paranoia is usually an incredibly short time).
Reply

#13
I do like the way An-chan mentioned which I thought beforehand too. I suppose a description for it is a Sims style system where you have a limited amount of points to share about like that.
Quote:I like the general direction for the few-ish vaguely D&D stats, yeah. I wonder, though, if something like TR should be a class as opposed to an "alignment" or some other sort of affiliation? After all, I could be TR's battling muscle or someone devising crazy new poisons and potions for them, and those would still fit pretty neatly into Trainer and Scientist.
Agreed with this; TR being a class seems a bit too large too given there's lots of ranks within it (grunt, mad scientist... =p)
[Image: suisdbsf.png]
By TwilightBlade of PC. =D
Reply

#14
Since I'm the one who suggested character classes, I think it should be appropriate of me to add my thoughts. Basically, I feel that there should only be a handful of generic classes such that people can develop their characters whichever way they like within that class. Trainer goes in without saying. There could also be Coordinator as a subclass for all, like a kind of hobby. There should be a Ranger class which is like your nature-protecting beast tamer sort of class. Rangers can communicate with Pokemon fairly well either helping them in need or asking them for assistance. They also have a wide knowledge for plants and deal with villains threatening nature ie poachers. Also, a villain team member would be interesting with ranks in it, like rookie/grunt to field agent to admin etc. DMs could give them missions as if it's HQ's orders and they would be like stealing something important or even planning operations as ranks go higher. Another fun class might be the Scientist class which focuses heavily on skills and well, science xD. Scientists would be able to do things such as making potions/medicine, developing items that enhance Pokemon (vitamins, battle items etc). As a result, they'll have a slightly higher chance of finding items on the floor or on caught Pokemon. They'd have to rely on skills as well as money to be able to succeed, much like how scientific careers are realistically. Another thing to note is that my idea has certain skill sets corresponding to each class to make them unique and not so unbalanced xD

I'd post more about the other aspects but I'll do it another time when I'm not on my phone xD;
Reply

#15
I like the idea for the Coordinator, Ranger, and villain team member classes (as mentioned, perhaps more along the lines of TR grunt, TR field agent, Team Plasma grunt, etc). I think Coordinator doesn't necessarily have to be a hobby (anime has coordinator doing serious competitions, though I admit not sure what a Coordinator will do in a RP adventure setting yet). The idea of the Scientist class needing the skills and money for their plans is a good one too.
[Image: skyandbalincopy.png]
“Now my friends, I think this calls for a toast. We’re embarking on something truly great here. Be prepared for what’s coming.”

[Avatar found image at LJ] [The Black Cat's Stains: My gallery] [The Ruin Maniac: My ASB-Neo Trainer Profile]
[Nothing, Everything and Heart of the Sea (coming soon): My stories]
Reply

#16
I love the idea that Phoenix mentioned of there being two classes - something along the lines of, let's say Trainer/Neutral for example, or Ranger/Evil? That would mean we could take out the villain class, simply replacing it with alignments; any class could be a villain with the right alignment (or wrong one, if they want to infiltrate...)

Then Team Villain, and all its grunt, field agent, etc. details could be part of a job detail.
Reply

#17
Okay, so, I was really bored in class today so I drafted up the following proposition for character classes. This is in line with the stats I proposed earlier in this thread, and I tried to account for as many suggestions as possible without having any internal contradictions. So!

Trainer
Trainer is the "standard" class. Trainers are versatile in many situations, but have no particular special skills aside from the obvious, catching Pokémon.
Improved stat: +5 to the stat chosen by the player.
Special Skill: Trainers are always allowed to take as many Pokémon with them as the dungeon maximum limit, and they may be of any type they choose. They have unlimited catching of Pokémon, as long as they have room in their box. They have the highest catch chance out of all classes.
Special Action: No special action (possibly the ability to challenge the E4 and become a champion?)

Type Specialty Trainer
A Specialty trainer chooses one type to be affiliated with. After this, at least half of the Pokémon on hand (rounded up) must be of that type. In exchange for this handicap, they have a better relationship with Pokémon of this type; they learn things faster, and are much easier to communicate with. Specialty trainers have a special permission to set up gym dungeons when they have at least six Pokémon of their type.
Improved stat: +5 to a stat depending on the type they choose (the stereotypically highest stat of the type, where atk -> str, def -> end, spd -> spd, sp.atk -> per, sp.def -> cha, or something like that)
Special Skill: Pokémon of the special type gain 1,5 times the normal amount of experience, and communicating with them is easier
Special Action: Pick a move of your type to 'assist' (1,5 normal damage), also the ability to start a Gym dungeon

Ranger
Rangers are the guardians of natural balance. They're more in tune with Pokémon and can communicate with them much easier than others, but in exchange, they can never catch a single Pokémon. The use of Poké Balls is forbidden to them, and their only permanent Pokémon is their companion. Other Pokémon only temporarily assist them as is necessary.
Improved stat: +5 to Charisma
Special Skill: Receiving assistance from wild Pokémon with almost a 100% chance (not including Legendaries/other Pokémon determined not to help), almost perfect communication with partner Pokémon, no ability to catch Pokémon under any circumstances
Special Action: Asking for assistance, communicating with partner Pokémon

Scientist
Scientists are, above all, curious about the world. They may not be the most aggressive battlers out there, but they have vast knowledge of the world and a keen sense of strategy. Scientists don't carry many Pokémon around, but they have an unlimited number of boxes back at home to hold anything they might want to catch for their studies. They're also extremely proficient with items, especially healing items, thanks to their superior knowledge of their workings.
Improved stat: +5 to Perception
Special Skill: Limited to (1-3, I'm not sure what's fair) Pokémon at all times. All items used have 1,5x normal effectiveness. Depending on the situation, they may receive additional PM information from the DM concerning their surroundings, opponents, or other details - no plot stuff!
Special Action: Healing once every X rounds (5, maybe?), the ability to start an in-game shop for selling items (but that's probably a more complicated system overall)

Any class would be able to join an evil team (I feel like we should make our own, or just use one) with the possible exception of Rangers, because them joining an evil cause would be sort of difficult to explain. I was also considering having a coordinator class, but I couldn't figure out what they would actually do in game, so. Also maybe strength +5, endurance +5, and speed +5 classes?

Thoughts, anyone?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply

#18
I'm just popping in to throw my support behind the suggested classes, although they'll probably need refining as other parts of the game come together! As I said earlier, I like the idea of a limited number of classes (to start with, at least), because in the end the class is a template/style of play more than a definition of the character you play.

I also like the idea of alignments (assuming they can shift and are reasonably flexible), because that also cuts out the need for a whole slew of repeat classes (Trainer, but EVIL etc). Also, rangers totally can be evil. No alignment restrictions, I say!

I'm also pretty happy with the stats as they've been suggested - they're pretty generalised and I don't feel like I'll be forced to micromanage my character with that. The entire point of having stats and skills is so that all our characters are judged along the same line, in the end. It's less about restrictions and more about guidelines. (Also, in the event we get super popular and attract the wrong kind of players, we can cut their powergaming/magical skill sucking characters off at the pass!).

Finally, have we come to any kind of conclusion about levelling, or are we just going with the concept of stats on their own? We also haven't talked about how stats would increase and how'll that'll affect gameplay, so... yeah, that'd be a nice thing to get some united conclusions on!

(Would it be a good idea to put this stuff to a vote once the ideas are all mostly together? Because I've noticed a divide on a couple of ideas, and this way we'd have a more solid community consensus!)
Catfish
Reply

#19
I like those classes, An-Chan! I agree with Deenaa though that Rangers should definitely be able to be evil, if only for the reasons I mentioned (infiltration), but of course people can come up with any reasonable explanation for a Ranger to be evil if it makes sense.

Also yes, I think no leveling for humans is the best idea. it just complicates things unnecessarily.

I think the idea of a vote is ok, if there's still stuff that's not agreed upon! So far though I think everything is looking really good!
Reply

#20
I'd say that whenever you'd have reason to "level", everyone will get either one point more in a stat as chosen by the DM, for developing said stat during their adventures, or one point to put in whichever stat they like. Thoughts on that?

Also, yeah, the poll thing might be good. We'll have to see when we have solid enough of a proposition to go. Maybe there'll be more consensus soon?
[Image: sentretsig_zps54cdacf8.png]








- The Sentret Moderator -
- Reads, writes and draws -
- The resident fan of Sentret -
- Also in charge of some stuff -




Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)