In my setting I'll be creating all new character classes, and I want to make sure that they'll allow for unique characters. Thus I want to brainstorm some ideas for ensuring that characters can be unique.
You'll notice that I focus on DnD/d20 here, as that's what I'm working on, but there's no reason we can't get ideas for / from other systems.
The easiest way to create unique characters is through the players. If a player has a great back-history and personality for his character, or you have the same for an NPC, then that character will stand out. In this manner two characters with identical stats can still be truely different.
However many times players want characters that can DO something unique. That's where the real work comes in.
Currently DnD has uniqueness through the sheer number of available options. There's dozens of base classes, hundreds of prestige classes and thousands of feats. Even with all of that the majority of characters are still cookie cutter builds. It gets even worse when you get down to Core Only.
So having a lot of options is one good method, provided that the options are balanced, and you are capable of mass producing that much material. Unfortunately most of us lack the time it would require to go this route.
Time for a quick analysis of core DnD:
7 races.
11 classes.
That gives us 77 possible race/class combos. However Race really doesn't affect your character in the long run. A 20th level orcish wizard is only slightly weaker than a human wizard of the same level. So we really only have eleven options. Of those the majority don't have many additional options. Monks, barbarians, clerics, and others have very little flexibility. There's not much difference between any two given monks. Wizards get specialization, but even that doesn't effect what you can do too much. Any two wizards, regardless of specialization, will still have the majority of their spells books the same. Fighters get so many feats that at higher levels what sets them apart isn't what feats they have, but which ones they don't.
Given all that I'll go out on a limb and say that there's around 30 different character concepts possible. Sure that's enough that your average player won't have to play the same concept twice, but given a decent sized group, and a few different campaigns, you'll start to see a lot of duplicate characters, especially since there are a few set roles that still need to be filled in every party.
Here's a couple of ideas that I've had to increase player options, without having to hire an army of monkeys to create new material.
- Have racial abilities scale with level. That way two members of the same class, but different race, will be significantly different.
- Don't make races too specialized. If your half orc is only good and being a Barbarian and can make a mediocre Fighter or Monk then you're eliminating options. Try to give all races something that is useful for all classes. Of course it's still possible to have a race that can't cast spells, just remember that you're reducing options when you do so.
- Fate. This is a new option at character creation, like race. It is the reason that your character is a important. It's basically an Astrological Alignment that also gives some mechanical bonuses. Adding just five options here to standard DnD character creation would increase the total options from 77 to 385.
- Upbringing. Another new character creation option that I'll be introducing. This one won't scale with level, but it will help to make characters more unique at low levels.
- Better class synergy. Right now a Barbarian 10 / Wizard 10 is a horrible option. I'd like to tweak my classes so that they all synergies with each other. Either that or I'll have a whole bunch of feats like Devoted Tracker, which create synergy between classes.
- Don't give casters access to their entire spell list. Two Sorcerers can have highly different spells available, but two clerics are almost identical. Use Sorcerer / Psion style spells known whenever possible
Where I'm lacking ideas at the moment is ensuring that two characters of the same race/fate/class can still be notably different. The last idea (limited spells known) helps out here, but not all classes work on that same spellcasting system. Soulborn and Incarnate's have an interesting system where they get some different abilities based off of alignment, so that's an interesting mechanic that I could introduce. Also I think I'll try to make Feats more potent, so that having a single feat different between two characters will have a notable effect.
Any other ideas?
Well, that sounds good, but the reason some of the classes don't work well together is cause, well, they just don't mix. For instance, in a barbarian wizard (the one you gave)combo you sacrifice a large amount of spellcasting to be able to kill stuff with weapons, when you already can do that with spells. However, WOTC's fixes to these combos come in the form of PrC's in other books. For instance, in COmplete Warrior, there is the Rage Mage. Now, using your logic, you have 11 classes. You choose one, so now every level you have a choice of (If you are chaotic neutral) 10 classes every level to gain a level in. If you are lawful good, 9 classes every level. If you are chaotic anything(besides neutral), you have 9 choices every level. So, by the time you reach 20th level you have a total of either 14859368894402900000 options, or if you were chaotic neutral 110000000000000000000 options. This is excluding skills, feats, equipment, and one of the most important factors of the game, behavior. So, it is not all that choice-less.
Quote from: VoranIllezou Now, using your logic, you have 11 classes. You choose one, so now every level you have a choice of (If you are chaotic neutral) 10 classes every level to gain a level in. If you are lawful good, 9 classes every level. If you are chaotic anything(besides neutral), you have 9 choices every level.[/quoteEh eh eh. Wrong.
CN has 9 choices too. Barb, Ranger, Bard, Sorc, Wiz, Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Rogue. Monk and Paladin both require Lawful alignment.
Also, you forget to take those multiclass prevention thingies into account. If you're a LG monk, for example, and take levels in fighter, you then have only eight options next level, as you can no longer proceed in the monk class.
Either way, you're merely going on class combinations. And a lot of said combinations would never be taken because they're just that bad. So, viably, I'd say that Pellanor is going down the right road.
And, afterall, diversity is the spice of life. And more spice is good. Well... most of the time. Not on chilli though. Trust me on that.
Well, skills and feats alone allow for huge possibilities. I'm not saying hes wrong, I'm just the numberman. For instnace, what if your monk puts all his skills into Craft(SPinach and Egg Omelete), or Profession (Wafflemaking)? (I had a character with those. The omelete was so good it saved us from death one time. Nother story for another day)
True, true. That's how I tend to make diverse characters.
That's the whole Quality vs Quantity issue. The vast majority of the available options are extra perks/flavour or small bonuses. Very few of them are character defining.
Even in your example there, you had a Monk who could make omelettes. You were not an Omelettemaster who also knew how to box, nor a master chef who also practised kung fu, you were a monk with a little extra flavour on the side.
Well, that first one is true. If you put max ranks into your mad omelette skillz and got skill focus, you could be the Omelette-fu master. (Your own style of martial arts, where omelettes are used)
Quote from: PellanorWhere I'm lacking ideas at the moment is ensuring that two characters of the same race/fate/class can still be notably different. The last idea (limited spells known) helps out here, but not all classes work on that same spellcasting system. Soulborn and Incarnate's have an interesting system where they get some different abilities based off of alignment, so that's an interesting mechanic that I could introduce. Also I think I'll try to make Feats more potent, so that having a single feat different between two characters will have a notable effect.
I think all GM's face this question, as they go on.
It is, literally, THE MAIN reason GMs go to skill based systems later in their careers. In my little disaster of a setting, if you are in Igbar and you want to learn the craft of omellette making, you could go to Hostem's Hostelry and learn basic cooking, or the sub skills Mass cooking, Create recipe, Camp cooking, chef. Literally.
Upbringing is a great thing to introduce, especially as it helps the characters and NPC's create a background.
I only have one thing to say.... mmmmmm omelettes
I have something to offer with the background material. In my setting, I've separated racial abilities from cultural abilities. For instance, a Dwarf's cultural abilities are their weapon familiarities, their AC vs. giants, and their racial attack bonuses against orcs and goblins.
A few things from my setting which may give you ideas. I've taken the basic archetype of the "standard" 4 races (dwarf, elf, goblin, orc) and modified them for my setting. I've mixed them with my elemental theme (dwarf > earth; elf > air; goblin > water; orc > fire), and chosen new names: gnome, salamander, sylph, and undine, named after the elemental spirits of lore.
While they still fill some of the traditional roles the normal races did, they have been specialized a little more. Sylphs, for example, are fast (40 ft. base speed), suffer less penalties to movement skills when double moving and running, and suffer a large penalty to checks made to resist bull rushes, trips, overruns, and other sorts of checks (since they weigh only 60-100 pounds for a medium race). Also, all of the races have larger ability score bonuses and more ability score penalties (salamander is +4 Str, -2 Dex, -2 Int, balanced as a PC race).
Each of these races also have a 3 level paragon class for my setting, which exemplifies the primary aspects of each race. While each race has their common focus (salamanders focus on barbarism, gnomes focus on fighter, sylphs focus on scout, and undines focus on rogue), I've been sure to not limit them to these roles.
One thing that helps limit role exclusion is to expand caster's ability scores to require some more MAD. For instance, bonus spell slots could be determined by Wisdom (the capacity for your mind to safely control that much magical energy), spell DCs could be determined by Charisma (your "force" of personality), and skills like spellcraft and appropriate knowledges can be made more important to keep Int important. This would allow a low int, but otherwise normal mental race to make adequate casters; it might even help reign in the power of the casters as compared to the non-casters.
Lastly, you can really influence the uniqueness of your characters by reducing class options and removing multiclass restrictions. For instance, you could really boil things down to warrior, expert, priest, mage, and create talent trees to represent aspects of the different classes (warrior could be weapon master, armor master, ferocity, senses). I'd be more than willing to help you create a generic system based around the SAGA/d20 Modern ruleset.
Quote from: Kap'n XeviatFor instance, you could really boil things down to warrior, expert, priest, mage, and create talent trees to represent aspects of the different classes (warrior could be weapon master, armor master, ferocity, senses). I'd be more than willing to help you create a generic system based around the SAGA/d20 Modern ruleset.
Unearthed Arcana[/i], page 76. ;)
Well, if the players are what make characters unique, then it's the characters that shouldn't be restricted. The best option for having the most options is to make everything extremely variable, and in all probablility mildly- to heavily-unbalanced. Let a barbarian toss a few uncanny dodge powers or a rage use to get a druid animal companion, let a fighter take a domain with 1/day per level casting on it because he's from some crazy background, etc. Don't be afraid to let crazy things happen.
I like Troll's suggestion.
Quote from: TrollWell, if the players are what make characters unique, then it's the characters that shouldn't be restricted. The best option for having the most options is to make everything extremely variable, and in all probablility mildly- to heavily-unbalanced. Let a barbarian toss a few uncanny dodge powers or a rage use to get a druid animal companion, let a fighter take a domain with 1/day per level casting on it because he's from some crazy background, etc. Don't be afraid to let crazy things happen.
Which is a wonderful idea, and I strongly advise this for anybody looking for characters that are more unique then the basic archtypes.
Only problem is, as you mentioned, d20 doesn't support this idea very well, unless you're willing to risk unbalancing the game. The better option is to use a skill-based system, like GURPS, as these are designed around that very idea. Assuming Rage and Animal Companion were roughly the same point value, you could make that trade without unbalancing the game at all. If, say, Rage had a higher point value then Animal Companion, you could probably get something else in the tradeoff, too.
Class-based systems like d20 tend not to encourage this degree of flexibility, instead opting for, "no, Barbarian gets Rage,
Druid{/i] gets Animal Companion.", which is better suited for people who want to know and expect what they're getting (as opposed to wanting to choose what they're getting).
Well, I did mention it in my second sentence, but it never helps to have it made clearer :)
Quote from: TrollWell, if the players are what make characters unique, then it's the characters that shouldn't be restricted. The best option for having the most options is to make everything extremely variable, and in all probablility mildly- to heavily-unbalanced. Let a barbarian toss a few uncanny dodge powers or a rage use to get a druid animal companion, let a fighter take a domain with 1/day per level casting on it because he's from some crazy background, etc. Don't be afraid to let crazy things happen.
I was thinking along the same lines when I started creating my own d20 based system. You can see it in the link below. Keep in mind that it is no where near finished.
http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?33872
Quote from: sdragon1984Quote from: TrollWell, if the players are what make characters unique, then it's the characters that shouldn't be restricted. The best option for having the most options is to make everything extremely variable, and in all probablility mildly- to heavily-unbalanced. Let a barbarian toss a few uncanny dodge powers or a rage use to get a druid animal companion, let a fighter take a domain with 1/day per level casting on it because he's from some crazy background, etc. Don't be afraid to let crazy things happen.
Which is a wonderful idea, and I strongly advise this for anybody looking for characters that are more unique then the basic archtypes.
Only problem is, as you mentioned, d20 doesn't support this idea very well, unless you're willing to risk unbalancing the game. The better option is to use a skill-based system, like GURPS, as these are designed around that very idea. Assuming Rage and Animal Companion were roughly the same point value, you could make that trade without unbalancing the game at all. If, say, Rage had a higher point value then Animal Companion, you could probably get something else in the tradeoff, too.
Class-based systems like d20 tend not to encourage this degree of flexibility, instead opting for, "no, Barbarian gets Rage, Druid{/i] gets Animal Companion.", which is better suited for people who want to know and expect what they're getting (as opposed to wanting to choose what they're getting).
Totally agreed.
Think I said something similar above, but let me put it in a different way. A more direct way.
all the machinations and mental gymnastics people are going through in this thread is basically just this:
You are trying to take a class based system
(which is more rigid by it's name--classification-based)
and trying to make it behave like a skill-based system.
That is all that it looks like from the wide-angle lens. If you want it to be skill-based, play a skill based game, or be aware that at the purest level, class based and skill based are 2 polar opposites, and once you are requesting a certain amount of fluidity, you might want to look at the polar end of the spectrum that is closest to where you want your game to be.