Star Wars: The Sith War - Character Archetypes

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

This one's going to be real quick. For those who have access to the Hero's Guide(for those that don't, let me know and I'll see what I can do), take a look at Ch. 2.

Ch 2 has "Character Archetypes" that basically give a class progression and a number of alternative class features that can be picked up if said progression is followed. Example: "Information Broker" Archetype says at Lvl 4(when you are Noble 2 / Scoundrel 2) you have the option of trading in your "Lucky" Scoundrel Ability for a "Contact--as per the class ability.

List of Archetypes:

Demagogue

Imperial Officer

Information Broker

Jedi Wanderer

Outlaw Tech

prowler

Rebel Officer

Scrounger

Shipjacker

Spirit Adept

Urban Adept

For those with the book, do you think these should be allowed? The main consideration would be the alternative class features that come with them. I personally think that while some of them are pretty shiny, they've got balancing factors.

Case in point: Information Broker "Blackmail" -- Replaces "Resource Access" noble ability with "Blackmail" Effectively the same thing except it stacks noble and scoundrel levels for the roll and increases the multiplier to x30 vs. x20. The drawback, of course, is that if you do it more than once in a week, the multiplier is reduced by 5.

Let's say a Resource Access roll is made 7 days a week for a noble:

(x20, x20, x20, x20, x20, x20, x20)

Now let's say a Blackmail roll is made 7 days a week for a Information Broker...

(x30, x25, x20, x15, x10, x5, Impossible)

The last roll can't even be made and the diminishing returns are fairly impressive.

I'm in favor of them as I'm effectively going towards Information Broker with Brad but ultimately it's not that big a deal to me either way. I'm just getting it out there for the people to take a look at and put their 2 credits in.

[z-Hana Rexius]

I'm not sure any of these fit me, so I'm not too worried about them either way, so long as they continue to maintain balance. And I think that the mods have a pretty good grip on game balance, so I'll abide by what they decide.

[Sparrow]

It seems to be a little give and take for multi-classed characters, right? Go for it. It gives people more options than the normal prestige class system.

[Tala]

Scoundrel: This is why we have moderators. If they like the idea and want to permit it, with or without alteration, fine, but have you discussed it with them yet?

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

I talked to Sen C about it, he aid to put it out on the list and see what people think.

[Tala]

Right-o, then.

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

So? What do you think? --- Directed at Tala

[Sen. Cruith'ne]

Senator Cruith'ne hates Character Archetypes. They encourage munchkinism and bullshit min-maxing. This isn't a simple matter of give a little, gain a little: they are expedited tracks of advancement that favor multiclassed characters, and are closer to 3.5's Gestalt characters than the harmless exchange of abilities some would describe them as.

Because we're not talking about a new rule being introduced, one that can be spun from whole cloth and laid out in its entirety for everyone to see, I'm laying down a rule on this referendum: if you haven't actually read the section on Character Archetypes, your vote doesn't count. The SWU forum isn't America; you don't get to vote in spite of ignorance or casual understanding of the issues.

If you've read the rules and they still seem handy to you, then vote as you like. I'd only ask that you consider how you'd feel about those rules if you were playing a single-classed character.

[z-Hana Rexius]

Fair enough. Unless someone gives me $30 or can get me the entirity of the text, I withdraw my votes of "whatever". Barring that, I still trust the Mods to do their job.

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

Originally Posted By: Sen. Cruith'ne

Senator Cruith'ne hates Character Archetypes. They encourage munchkinism and bullshit min-maxing. This isn't a simple matter of give a little, gain a little: they are expedited tracks of advancement that favor multiclassed characters, and are closer to 3.5's Gestalt characters than the harmless exchange of abilities some would describe them as.

How do you figure? Expedited? ??? They get access to the same abilities every other multi-class character gets, with the exception of a couple variants that are designed to fit with the archetype(Blackmail replacing Resource Acccess, as an example) Gestalt takes 2 classes and by the time you get to Gestalted 20, you have access to both classes lvl 20 abilities. There is no archetype that even comes close to that. I'm sitting here looking at the book and I can see no archetype that gets access to any class's higher than lvl 13 abilities(and those archetypes' counterpart classes are at 7). And that's assuming you take the archetype all the way up to lvl 20.

Originally Posted By: Sen. Cruith'ne

Because we're not talking about a new rule being introduced, one that can be spun from whole cloth and laid out in its entirety for everyone to see, I'm laying down a rule on this referendum: if you haven't actually read the section on Character Archetypes, your vote doesn't count.

Originally Posted By: Hana Rexiue

Fair enough. Unless someone gives me $30 or can get me the entirity of the text, I withdraw my votes of "whatever". wink Barring that, I still trust the Mods to do their job.

I would say again to everyone. If you do not have a copy of the Hero guide, let me know. PM preferably, just so we don't end up flooding the boards with "I don't have it" messages.

Originally Posted By: Sen. Cruith'ne

If you've read the rules and they still seem handy to you, then vote as you like. I'd only ask that you consider how you'd feel about those rules if you were playing a single-classed character.

I would be less concerned with how people playing single-classed characters would feel than I would be with how people playing multi-classed characters would feel. Reason 1 being - We've got more than a couple multi-classed characters at the moment. Reason 2) Comparing any single class character to any multi class character will come up with much the same "problem"(if versatility can be called a problem) that seems to be the issue here.

All that said, if it's really that big of a deal, I'll drop it. I just don't seem to see the problem here unless the problem is multi-classing itself.

[z-Hana Rexius]

After reviewing them, it doesn't look like they are all bad. They aren't all good, either. I see two issues with them.

Because the Archtypes are allowed to count as a single class, some of their bonuses are higher than they would be for another multi-classed character. Their numbers seem comparable to other MC characters, as far as BAB and Saves.

Their marks of customization are an issue with single classes. But that is the same issue with multi-classes versus single classes.

I think that at this point, I'd be ok with them coming into play, so long as the Mods approve them for play; I don't like a blanket approval.

[Hadicall Cerauno]

I don't see the need for the Acrhtypes, I mean really, why? You want an Outlaw Tech, simply select the classes in the same manner the book has presented them to you and, viola, you have exactly what they have, an Outlaw Tech.

So why would anyone specifically request the Archtypes? Simply put: because of the variant abilities they offer.

If a player would like access to the variant abilities presented in the Hero's Guide then I'm sure we moderators would be willing to review that on a case-by-case basis.

[Sen. Cruith'ne]

Originally Posted By: Grand Master Tel'Amo

I don't see the need for the Acrhtypes, I mean really, why? You want an Outlaw Tech, simply select the classes in the same manner the book has presented them to you and, viola, you have exactly what they have, an Outlaw Tech.

So why would anyone specifically request the Archtypes? Simply put: because of the variant abilities they offer.

If a player would like access to the variant abilities presented in the Hero's Guide then I'm sure we moderators would be willing to review that on a case-by-case basis.

About ten years ago, I used to play in an AD&D group with a guy who's still a friend of mine. Said guy - Mike - has about twenty years on me in terms of age, and has been playing since first ed, himself.

What Dave just brought up is almost word for word what Mike told me when I begged him to let me run a 'Kit', a sort of specialized skill and power suite from AD&D 2.5 that you could append to a regular Class (this was before Prestige Classes) to make them more interesting. What Mike basically told me is that you don't need a kit to do what kits do. You want to run a Thief-Acrobat? Roll Thief, adjust accordingly. Want to play a Cavalier? Roll Paladin, adjust accordingly. Want to play a Swashbuckler? Roll Fighter, adjust accordingly. All of those possibilities exist within the existing rule set. You don't need new rules to do it. And I think that's probably the best and strongest case against Character Archetypes. If you want a different feature, that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. But a new mechanic is not required to achieve what is functionally a small degree of customization.

Better yet, doing it like this means it's an option single class characters can employ, too.

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

So you're saying (basically) - Forget the Archetypes, and then see if they can be acquired on a case-by-case basis? (basically archetypes without the multiclassing part)

[Sen. Cruith'ne]

What I'm saying is that I think a more elegant solution would be to break all the archetypes into their component parts and then permit those pieces to apply to individual characters on a case-by-case basis.

To cite your own example above, you could take whatever Class levels you wanted, and then at some point say "Hey, I've got this 'Resource Access' ability, but there also exists this one called 'Blackmail' that does functionally something close, but I feel fits the character better. Could I maybe switch that out?"

And I'd be all "Blackmail is fucking broken because it increases the modifier by ten and only penalizes you if you use it more than once a week, which is kind of an impotent threat in this forum and only makes sense in a TT setting, barely. So if you're willing to have it nerfed a bit in consideration for this game format, yeah, I could see how that applies to your character more than what you've got, and for the cost of a Feat, you can switch it out."

"Cost!?", you would balk. "COST!?"

And that's when I'd drag up my copy of the D&D d20 Complete Scoundrel and point out to you that modifying an old class ability to do something different and incorporate levels in another Class is what "Feats" do, as with Swift Hunter, Swift Ambusher, Master Spellthief, Martial Stalker, etc.

Basically, you want a bunch of free Feats. Your Resource Access is worth a squirt of piss with your one-level dip into Noble, but if you can squeeze this through the door of reasonable doubt, you get to stack AND improve your Resource Access for nothing.

Ever wonder why there was a Revised edition of these rules? It's because the original ones were as busted as a jet pieced together by Tibetan fucking goat farmers.

[DirtyRottenScoundrel]

I think that would work

I think we could work out the Blackmail modification over PM